Upgrade.Vet

NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900529

Original file (ND0900529.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-AR, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20090107
Characterization of Service Received:

Narrative Reason for Discharge:
Authority for Discharge: MILPERSMAN 3630600 (COMMISSION OF SERIOUS OFFENSE)

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

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive: USNR (DEP)     19941102 - 19941113     Active:

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment: 19941114      Age at Enlistment:
Period of Enlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 19960419       Highest Rank/Rate: AA
Length of Service: Year(s) Month(s) 5 D ay(s)
Education Level:         AFQT: 47
Evaluation Marks:        Performance: NFIR         Behavior: NFIR    OTA: 1.59

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):

Periods of CONF: NONE

NJP:
- 19950313 : No further information found in record. [Extracted from Enlisted Performance Record, NAVPERS
1070/609.]

- 19950831:      Article 86 (UA 0615, 19950830 - 0615, 19950831 (1 day)
         Awarded: Suspended:

- 19951208 :      Article 86 (UA), 5 specifications:
                  - Specification 1: 45 minutes 0600-0645 19951025
                  - Specification 2: 50 minutes 0730-0820 19951110
                  - Specification 3: 5 hours, 55 minutes 0805-1400 19951114
                  - Specification 4: 5 days, 19951122 - 19951127
                  - Specification 5: 45 minutes 1400-1445 19951203
         Article 91 (Insubordinate conduct towards a First Class petty Officer)
         Article 92 (Failure to obey a lawful general order and dereliction of duty), 5 specifications
         Article 121 (Larceny and wrongful appropriation)
         Awarded: Suspended:

19960118 : Article 121 (Larceny)
Awarded: Suspended:

SCM: SPCM: CC:

Retention Warning Counseling:

- 19951211 :      For your continued violations of the UCMJ.

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. The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C, Change 9, effective 22 July 1994 until 2 October 1996), Article 3630600, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL BY REASON 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 86 (UA); Article 91 (Insubordinate conduct toward a First Class Petty); Article 92 (Failure to obey a lawful general order) and Article 121 (Larceny and wrongful appropriation).

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

Applicant’s Issues

1. Discharge was too harsh.

Decision

Date: 20090326 Location: Washington D.C. R epresentation :

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

Discussion

Issue 1: ( ) . The Applicant contends she is entitled to a discharge upgrade because she believes the discharge was too harsh. 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 retention warning and four NJP’s for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 86 (UA), 6 specifications; Article 91 (Insubordinate conduct toward a First Class Petty); Article 92 (Failure to obey a lawful general order), 5 specifications and Article 121 (Larceny and wrongful appropriation), 2 specifications. These are considered serious violations 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 pursue a punitive discharge but instead opted for an administrative discharge. The Applicant has failed to provide any documentation to show how her discharge was too harsh. During the NDRB’s review it was determined all discharge procedures and results were done in accordance with established procedures and the awarded discharge characterization was appropriate and within policy. An upgrade would be inappropriate.

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.

Besides the DD Form 293, the Applicant submitted no additional documentation. 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. Should the Applicant feel her 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

USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0901319

Original file (MD0901319.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE.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. ” 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...
USMC | DRB | 2012_Marine | MD1201839

Original file (MD1201839.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Additionally, the NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities. 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...
NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1101403

Original file (ND1101403.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The NDRB determined that the characterization of the Applicant’s discharge was equitable and that relief based on this issue is not warranted. 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...
NAVY | DRB | 2015_Navy | ND1501068

Original file (ND1501068.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. 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 remain UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS and the narrative reason for separation shall remain PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT. ” Additional Reviews : After a...
USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1001852

Original file (MD1001852.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s 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. Additionally, the NDRB does not have the authority to change a narrative reason for separation to one indicating a medical disability or other...
USMC | DRB | 2012_Marine | MD1201039

Original file (MD1201039.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Based on the offenses committed by the Applicant, command administratively processed for separation. ” 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 of enhancing reenlistment opportunities.
USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0900689

Original file (MD0900689.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to: Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive:USMCR (DEP)20010116 - 20010923Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 20010924Age at Enlistment: Period of Enlistment: Years MonthsDate of Discharge:20050923Highest Rank:Length of Service: Year(s)Month(s)00 Day(s)Education Level: AFQT:50MOS: 3521Proficiency/Conduct Marks (# of occasions):()/()Fitness Reports: Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):Rifle...
NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801679

Original file (ND0801679.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 | 2008_Navy | ND0801969

Original file (ND0801969.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to: Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive: USNR (DEP)20011031 - 20020704Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 20020705Age at Enlistment:Period of Enlistment: YearsExtensionDate of Discharge:20041028Highest Rank/Rate:ABEANLength of Service: Years Months17 DaysEducation Level:AFQT: 70EvaluationMarks:Performance:3.0(3)Behavior:1.6(3)OTA: 2.55Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):Periods of UA/CONF:...
NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1001030

Original file (ND1001030.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. 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 . ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a...

Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900529

Similar Decisions