Upgrade.Vet

NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900283

Original file (ND0900283.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-FA, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20081120

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)      20010830 - 20010927     Active:

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment: 20010928     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20020722      Highest Rank/Rate: FA
Length of Service : Y ear ( s ) M onth ( s ) 23 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: NFIR
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: NFIR         Behavior: NFIR OTA: NFIR

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):

Periods of UA /C ONF :

NJP :
- 20030502 : Art icle 86 (UA), 3 specifications
Article 112a (Drug use - cocaine )
Awarded : Susp ended :

S CM : SPCM: C C : Retention Warning Counseling :

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 :

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

Applicant’s Issues

1. Employment opportunities – wants to become a police officer.
2. Youth and immaturity.
3. Post-service conduct.

Decision

Date: 20 0 9 0226 Location: Washington D.C . R epresentation :

By a vote of the Characterization shall .
By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall 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 .

: ( ) . The Applicant contends he was only 18 years old at the time of the incident and has grown up since being discharged . 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 record of service was marred by one NJP for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 86 ( UA, a bsence without leave ) and Article 112a ( Drug use, w rongful use or possession of controlled substance s - cocaine ). Violation of Article 112a is considered a serious offense which could have resulted in a punitive discharge and confinement if adjudicated and awarded as part of a sentence by a special or general court martial. The command did not refer the Applicant for a court martial but opted instead for an administrative discharge.

The Applicant provided no documentation in support of his request for an upgrade. While the Applicant may believe his youth was a factor in his misconduct, the record does not reflect he was not responsible for his actions or not accountable for his misconduct due to youth or immaturity. The Board determined the awarded discharge was appropriate and an upgrade would be inappropriate.

Issue 3 : ( ) . The Applicant contends he is on his way to becoming a police officer. The NDRB 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.

T he Board applauds the Applicant for taking accountability for his actions and wanting to become a police office r . 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, “Under Other Than Honorable Conditions”, was an

appropriate characterization considering the length of service and the UCMJ violations involved , and based on the lack of post- service documentation provided 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

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A . The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 33, effective 16 July 2001 until
21 August 2002, Article 1910-146, Separation by Reason of Misconduct - Drug Abuse.

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 112a (Drug use).

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 | ND0902623

Original file (ND0902623.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.Applicant seeks an upgrade to reenlist in the military.2. When notified of administrative separation processing using the procedure, the Applicant had an opportunity to defend himself, but waived rights to consult with a qualified counsel, submit a written statement, and request an administrative board or a General Court-Martial Convening Authority review. ” Additional Reviews...
NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0800680

Original file (ND0800680.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall MISCONDUCT (DRUG ABUSE).Discussion (): RELIEF NOT WARRANTED.The Applicant did not present any issues however, it is assumed from the certificates provided the Applicant is requesting an upgrade in the characterization of his discharge based on post service conduct. 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...
USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0900597

Original file (MD0900597.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Violation of Article 112a is one such offense requiring mandatory separation regardless of time in service, grade or record of service. ” 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. Additionally, the Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities.
NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801604

Original file (ND0801604.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 conduct mitigates the reason for the characterization of discharge.The Applicant submitted a statement with his DD-293 Application claiming employment, education efforts, and participation in his church and in other community service. The Board determined the characterization...
NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801424

Original file (ND0801424.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 conduct mitigates the reason for the characterization of discharge.At this time, the Applicant has not provided any documentation for the Board to review in considering an upgrade and therefore relief is denied.After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the...
NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0901302

Original file (ND0901302.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-GMSN, USN Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request Application Received: 20090409 Characterization of Service Received: Narrative Reason for Discharge: (DRUG ABUSE) Authority for Discharge: MILPERSMAN Applicant’s Request: Characterization change to: Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive: USNR (DEP) 20040615 - 20040907 Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 20040908 Age at Enlistment: Period of Enlistment: Years Extension Date of...
NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801593

Original file (ND0801593.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Board determined the characterization of discharge received was appropriate for the violations the Applicant was responsible for.After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Record, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found Pertinent Regulation/Law A. ” Additional Reviews : Subsequent to a document review, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application is...
NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900472

Original file (ND0900472.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Applicant’s Request: Characterization change to: Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive: USNR (DEP) 19970130 - 19970305 Active: 19970306 - 20010301 Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 20010302Age at Enlistment: Period of Enlistment: Years Extension Date of Discharge: 20010518Highest Rank/Rate: EN2Length of Service: Year(s) Month(s) 17 Day(s) Education Level: AFQT: 35Evaluation Marks: Performance: NFIR Behavior: NFIR OTA: NFIRAwards and...
NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801019

Original file (ND0801019.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to: Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive: USNR (DEP)20030930 - 20040801Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 20040802Period of Enlistment: YearsExtensionDate of Discharge:20051021Length of Service: Yrs Mths20 DysEducation Level: Age at Enlistment:AFQT: 52Highest Rank/Rate:ENFAEvaluation Marks:Performance: NFIR Behavior:NFIROTA: NFIRAwards and Decorations (per DD 214):NDSM GWOTSM GWOTEM...
NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1000574

Original file (ND1000574.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant seeks an upgrade for employment opportunities.2. ” 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. Additionally, the NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose...

Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900283

Similar Decisions