Upgrade.Vet

NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801931

Original file (ND0801931.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-CTO2, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20080923
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: USNR (DEP) 19900614 - 19900729        Active: 19900730 – 19930422 HON

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment: 19930423      Age at Enlistment:
Period of Enlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 19980 306      Highest Rank/Rate: CTO2
Length of Service: Years Months 04 D ays
Education Level:         AFQT: 96
Evaluation Marks: Performance: 3.8 ( 5 ) Behavior: 2.9 ( 5 ) OTA: 3.48

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):     Rifle Pistol LOC NER ESWS

Periods of UA/CONF: SCM: SPCM:

NJP:
- 19940318: Article 111 (Drunken driving)
Awarded: Suspended:

CC:

- 19971121 :      Offense: Driving under the influence of alcohol
         Sentence: SEE COURT TRANSCRIPT DATED 19971124

Retention Warning Counseling:

- 19940318:      For violation UCMJ, Article 111-Drunken driving

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

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

         “ CONTINUOUS HONORABLE ACTIVE SERVICE FROM
19900730 TO 19930422 ”

The NDRB will recommend to the Commander, 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 Representation:     From Congress member:

Other Documentation:

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 18, effective 12 December 1997 until
21 August 2002, 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 .

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

Applicant’s Issues

1. In-service performance for 7 years and 8 months.
2. Post service conduct.

Decision

Date: 20090122 Location: Washington D.C. R epresentation :

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

Discussion

: ( ) . The Applicant contends the characterization of his discharge should be upgraded because he served the country honorably for 7 years and 8 months, reenlisted and received a good conduct medal prior to his separation. 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 service was marred by one retention warning for drunk driving, one NJP for a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UMCJ): Article 111 (Drunk driving) and one civilian conviction for Driving Under the Influence (DUI) of alcohol. When the quality of a member’s service has met the standards of accepted conduct and performance of duty for military personnel, it is appropriate to characterize that service 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. Based on the frequency, seriousness of the offenses and lack of mitigating factors, the Board determined an upgrade to “Honorable” is not appropriate. Additionally, the Applicant’s in-service performance and length of service was not sufficient to mitigate the misconduct. The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflects his failure to meet the standards for conduct of a U.S. Sailor. The Board determined the awarded discharge characterization was appropriate and an upgrade would be inappropriate.

: ( ) . The Applicant contends he has been employed for 10 years with no disciplinary problems. However, he submitted no post service documentation in support of this request. The Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. However, there is no law or regulation, which provides an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in the civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Outstanding post-service conduct, 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, is considered during Board reviews. Documentation to help support a post service conduct upgrade includes, but is not limited to: a verifiable continuous employment record; marriage and children’s birth certificate (if applicable); character witness statements; 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 companies, or other financial institutions; and documentation of a drug free lifestyle. 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.

To warrant an upgrade the Applicant’s post service efforts need to be more encompassing. The Applicant could have produced additional evidence as stated in the above paragraph with the full understanding completion of these items alone does not guarantee an upgrade. The Board determined the characterization of service received, “General (Under Honorable Conditions)”, was an appropriate characterization. Should the Applicant feel his post service conduct becomes substantial enough to warrant a personal appearance, there are veteran’s organizations, such as the American Legion, willing to provide guidance to assist former service members in their efforts to obtain a discharge upgrade.

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, provided 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 granted 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.

Employment/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 | 2008_Navy | ND0801576

Original file (ND0801576.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT Applicant’s Issues 1. The Applicant contends he is entitled to a discharge upgrade due to his record of service, his single incident of serious misconduct, and because his commanding officer strongly recommended a “General (Under Honorable Conditions)” discharge. ” Additional Reviews : Subsequent to a document review, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the...
USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1101922

Original file (MD1101922.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to: Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive:USMCR (DEP)20070306 - 20070318Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Current Enlistment: 20070319Age at Enlistment: Period of Enlistment: Years MonthsDate of Discharge:20100622Highest Rank:Length of Service: Years Months04 DaysEducation Level: AFQT:71MOS: 7234Proficiency/Conduct Marks (# of occasions):()/()Fitness Reports: Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):Rifle...
NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801042

Original file (ND0801042.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Considering the NJP for the Article 111 violation and the numerous civilian violations, which are considered more than minor traffic violations, the Board determined an 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...
NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1101103

Original file (ND1101103.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Relief denied.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entries, and discharge process, the Board found Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall and the narrative reason for separation shall remain .The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing for a period of fifteen years from the date of discharge. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are...
NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1000962

Original file (ND1000962.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Separation Authority approved the Command’s recommendation for discharge and designated that the basis for separation would be MISCONDUCT (Serious Offense), having determined that the evidence of record supported both reasons for discharge, but that discharge for MISCONDUCT (Serious Offense) was the more appropriate basis for the Applicant’s administrative separation. The Separation Authority reviewed the evidence of record and the gravity of the miscondcut and directed the Applicant be...
NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0800573

Original file (ND0800573.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Applicant’s Request: Characterization change to: Narrative Reason change: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive: USNR (DEP)20040722 - 20040729 Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 20040730Period of enlistment:4 YearsDate of Discharge:20051110Length of Service: Yrs Mths10 DysEducation Level: 12Age at Enlistment:AFQT: 82Highest Rank/Rate:AZANEvaluation marks:Performance: 4.0 (3) Behavior:2.0 (3)OTA: 2.94 (3)Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):,,,and NJP:20050907: Violation...
USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0900066

Original file (MD0900066.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall MISCONDUCT.Discussion :().The Applicant contends he is entitled to a discharge upgrade because the punishment he received was too severe for his minor misconduct.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 appears to understand his administrative separation was part of the...
USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0900336

Original file (MD0900336.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT Applicant’s Issues 1. Record, 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...
NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0901612

Original file (ND0901612.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant is seeking better employment opportunities2. ” 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...
NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0800367

Original file (ND0800367.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

While the Board’s review of the Applicant’s available records revealed he requested a “ medical disability for all of his medical conditions”, the evidence of record does not indicate a medical discharge was being pursued. 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...

Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801931

Similar Decisions