Upgrade.Vet

NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801856

Original file (ND0801856.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-AA, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20080909

Characterization of Service Received:

Narrative Reason for Discharge:

Authority for Discharge: MILPERSMAN

Applicant’s Request: Characterization change to:
                  Narrative Reason change to:

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive: US N R (DEP) 20040913 - 2005041 1        Active:

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment: 20050412     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20061218      Highest Rank/Rate: AN
Length of Service : Y ear M onth s 07 D a ys
Education Level:        AFQT: 53
Evaluation M arks: Performance: NFIR Behavior: NFIR OTA: NFIR

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      Rifle Pistol

Periods of UA /C ONF : S CM : SPCM: C C :

NJP:
- 20050915 : Article 86 (UA), 2 specifications
Article 92 (Failure to obey a lawful order)
Awarded: Suspended:

- 20061027 : Article 92 (Drinking alcohol under 21)
Article 107 (Making false statement)
Article 134 (Drunk and disorderly)
Awarded :

- 20061113 : Article 92 (Consuming alcohol under 21)
Article 128 (Unlawfully striking a service member)
Article 134 (Drunk and disorderly behavior)
         Awarded: CONF 3 Days

Retention Warning Counseling :

- 20050915 : Article 86 (Unauthorized absence)
Article 92 (Failure to obey a lawful order)

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

The NDRB did note administrative error(s) on the original DD Form 214:

         “ PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT ”

The NDRB will recommend to the C ommander, Navy Personnel Command , that the DD 214 be corrected as appropriate.

Types of Documents Submitted/reviewed

Related to Military Service:
DD 214:         Service/ Medical Record:                  Other Records:

Related to Post-Service Period:
         Employment:                        Finances:                          Education /Training :
         Health/Medical Records:          Substance Abuse:                           Criminal Records:
         Family/Personal Status:          Community Service:                References:
Additional Statements :
From Applicant:        From Representat ion :    From Congress m ember :

Oth er Documentation :

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 11, effective 26 April 2005 until Present, Article 1910-140, SEPARATION BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT - PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT .

B. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part II, Para 211, Regularity of Government Affairs , Part V, Para 502, Propriety and Para 503, Equity .

C. The Manual for Courts-Martial authorizes the award of a punitive discharge if adjudged as part of the sentence upon conviction by a special or general court-martial for violation of the UCMJ, Article 92, 107 and 128.

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB)
DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT

Applicant’s Issues

1. Reenlistment opportunities.
2. Punishment too severe.

Decision

Date: 20090107 Location: Washington D.C . R epresentation :

By a vote of the Characterization shall .
By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT .

Discussion

: either which the Board cannot form the basis of relief for the Applicant, or the Board does not have the authority to grant the relief for which the Applicant petitioned. The Applicant is directed to the Addendum , specifically the paragraph concerning , regarding this Issue.

: ( ) . The Applicant contends he is entitled to a discharge upgrade because the punishment he received was too severe for the misconduct he committed. In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of Government affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the Applicant. The Applicant’s re cord of service was marred by one retention warning and three NJP ’ s for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 86 (U A ); Article 92 (Disobeying a lawful order); Article 107 (False official statement); Article 128 (Assault); and Article 134 (Drunk and disorderly). Violation s of Article 92 , Article 107 , or Article 128 are considered serious offense s , punishable by a punitive discharge and confinement if adjudicated and awarded by a special or general court-martial. The command did not pursue a punitive discharge but instead opted for an administrative discharge.

The Applicant appears to understand his discharge was part of the punishment for his misconduct. For the edification of the Applicant, he was administratively discharged from the Navy through a separate process subsequent to his NJP s. The numerous NJPs were certainly influences on the Applicant’s command to pursue an administrative discharge and in determining the characterization of service. However, the record of evidence does not show the Applicant’s command acted without propriety and equity in handling the Applicant’s discharge process.

The Applicant has requested an upgrade in his discharge characterization to “General (Under Honorable Conditions)”. A “General (Under Honorable Conditions)” is appropriate if the member’s service has been honest and faithful but significant negative aspects of the member’s conduct or performance outweighs positive aspects of the member’s military record. An “Under Other Than Honorable” conditions discharge is appropriate when the basis for separation is commission or omission of an act that constitutes a significant departure from the conduct expected from a service member. The NDRB determined the Applicant’s repeated serious misconduct were properly considered in determining the characterization of his service and the awarded discharge characterization was appropriate; a n upgrade would be inappropriate.

After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Record Entries, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found

ADDENDUM: Information for the Applicant

Complaint Procedures : If you believe that the decision in your case is unclear, not responsive to the issues you raised, or does not otherwise comport with the decisional document requirements of DoD Instruction 1332.28, you may submit a complaint in accordance with Enclosure (5) of that Instruction to the Joint Service Review Activity, OUSD (P&R) PI-LP, The Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-4000 . You should read Enclosure (5) of the Instruction before submitting such a complaint. The complaint procedure does not permit a challenge of the merits of the decision; it is designed solely to ensure that the decisional documents meet applicable requirements for clarity and responsiveness. You may view DoD Instruction 1332.28 and other Decisional Documents by going online at “ http://Boards.law.af.mil . ”

Additional Reviews : Subsequent to a document review, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provi ded the application is received at the NDRB within 15 years from the date of discharge. The Applicant can provide documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments or any additional evidence related to this discharge. Representation at a personal appearance hearing is recommended but not required. If a former member has been discharged for more than 15 years , has already been grante d a personal appearance hearing or has otherwise exhausted his opportunities before the NDRB, the Applicant may petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR), 2 Navy Annex, Washington, DC 20370-5100 for further review.

Service Benefits: The Veterans Administration determines eligibility for post-service benefits, not the Naval Discharge Review Board. There is no requirement or law that grants recharacterization solely on the issue of obtaining Veterans' benefits and this issue does not serve to provide a foundation upon which the Board can grant relief.

Employmen t / Educational Opportunities : The Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment or educational opportunities. Regulations limit the Board’s review to a determination of the propriety and equity of the discharge.

Reenlistment/RE-code: Since the NDRB has no jurisdiction over reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Navy, Marine Corps, or any other of the Armed Forces, the NDRB is not authorized to change a reenlistment code. Only the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) can make changes to reenlistment codes. Additionally, the Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities. An unfavorable “RE” code is, in itself, not a bar to reenlistment. A request for a waiver can be submitted during the processing of a formal application for reenlistment through a recruiter.

Medical Conditions and Misconduct : DoD disability regulations do not preclude a disciplinary separation. Appropriate regulations stipulate that separations for misconduct take precedence over potential separations for other reasons. Whenever a member is being processed through the Physical Evaluation Board, and subsequently is processed for an administrative involuntary separation or is referred to a court martial for misconduct, the disability evaluation is suspended. The Physical Evaluation Board case remains in suspense pending the outcome of the non-disability proceedings. If the action includes either a punitive or administrative discharge for misconduct or for any basis wherein an Other Than Honorable Discharge is authorized, the medical board report is filed in the member’s terminated health record. Additionally, the NDRB does not have the authority to change a narrative reason for separation to one indicating a medical disability or other medical related reasons. Only the Board for Correction of Naval Records can grant this type of narrative reason change.

Automatic Upgrades - There is no law or regulation, which provides that an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving Naval service. The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the Applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review. Examples of documentation that may be provided to the Board include proof of educational pursuits, verifiable employment records, documentation of community service, credible evidence of a substance free lifestyle and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities.

Issues Concerning Bad-Conduct Discharges (BCD ) – Because relevant and material facts stated in a court-martial specification are presumed by the NDRB to be established facts, issues relating to the Applicant’s innocence of charges for which he was found guilty cannot form a basis for relief. With respect to a discharge adjudged by a special court-martial, the action of the NDRB is restricted to upgrades based on clemency. Clemency is an act of leniency that reduces the severity of the punishment imposed. The NDRB does not have the jurisdictional authority to review a discharge or dismissal resulting from a general court-martial.

Board Membership: The names and votes of the members of the Board are recorded on the original of this document and may be obtained from the service records by writing to:

Secretary of the Navy Council of Review Boards
Attn: Naval Discharge Review Board
720 Kennon Street SE Rm 309
Washington Navy Yard DC 20374-5023

Similar Decisions

NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900309

Original file (ND0900309.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant is advised that completion of these items alone does not guarantee the upgrade of an unfavorable discharge, as each discharge is reviewed by the Board on a case by case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member’s overall character.Besides the Applicant DD Form 293 and personal letter, no documentation was provided for review. Should the Applicant obtain additional...
NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801671

Original file (ND0801671.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT Applicant’s Issues 1. Supporting documentation to help support a post service conduct upgrade includes, but is not limited to: a verifiable continuous employment record; documentation of community or church service; certification of non-involvement with civil authorities; evidence of financial stability or letters of good standing from banks, credit card company’s or other financial institutions;...
USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0900686

Original file (MD0900686.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT Applicant’s Issues 1. Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entries, discharge process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall remain “Bad Conduct Discharge,” and the narrative reason for separation shall remain “Court-Martial.” The Applicant...
NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801750

Original file (ND0801750.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Record Entries, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found ADDENDUM: Information for the Applicant Complaint Procedures : If you believe that the decision in your case is unclear, not responsive to the issues you raised, or does not otherwise comport with the decisional document requirements of DoD Instruction 1332.28, you may submit a complaint in accordance with...
NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900557

Original file (ND0900557.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Board determined this issue was insufficient to justify the Applicant’s misconduct and clemency was not warranted. The Applicant is advised that completion of these items alone does not guarantee clemency will be granted, as each discharge is reviewed by the Board on a case by case basis to determine if post service conduct justifies clemency. The Board determined the characterization of service received, “Bad Conduct Discharge”, was an appropriate characterization considering the...
NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0902621

Original file (ND0902621.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Representation: By a vote of the Characterization shall .By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall .Discussion The NDRB, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge, is authorized to change the character of service and the reason for discharge if such change is warranted.In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include...
NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600602

Original file (ND0600602.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. “ I would like to request and schedule a date and time to fly to Washington D.C. to request an discharge upgrade and convene with the Naval Council of Personnel Boards.” Documentation In addition to the service and medical records, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant’s statement, undtdApplicant’s DD Form 214...
USMC | DRB | 2015_Marine | MD1500426

Original file (MD1500426.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant’s record of service included 6105 counseling warnings; for of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 86 (Absence without leave), Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation; 2 specifications), and Article 107 (False official statements); and for of the UCMJ: Article 86 (Absence without leave; 3 specifications), Article 91 (Insubordinate conduct toward warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer; 2 specifications), Article 92 (Failure to obey...
NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0901777

Original file (ND0901777.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to:Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive:USNR (DEP)20030829 - 20040627Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Current Enlistment: 20040628Age at Enlistment:Period of Enlistment: YearsExtensionDate of Discharge:20060323Highest Rank/Rate:SNLength of Service: Year(s)Month(s)26 Day(s)Education Level:AFQT: 53EvaluationMarks:Performance:3.0(1)Behavior:1.0(1)OTA: 2.67Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):Periods of...
NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1301650

Original file (ND1301650.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY = NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT =a APPLICANTS IssuES 1. Additional Reviews: After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application is received at the NDRB within 15 years of the Applicant's date of discharge. There is no requirement or law that grants recharacterization solely on the issue of obtaining veterans benefits and this issue does not serve...

Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801856

Similar Decisions