Upgrade.Vet

NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900622

Original file (ND0900622.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-SR, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20090123

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)      20070124 - 20070204     Active:

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment: 20070205     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20080229      Highest Rank/Rate: SR
Length of Service : Y ear ( s ) M onth ( s ) 25 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 59
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: NFIR         Behavior: NFIR OTA: NFIR

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      CEREMONIAL GUARD RIBBON

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

Retention Warning Counseling :

- 20080115 :       NFIR [Date extracted from Commanding Officer’s letter dated 20080125]

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. Seeking reentry into the military.
2. Cooperated with Naval Criminal Investigative Services (NCIS) .
3. Post service conduct.

Decision

Date: 20 0 9 0402 Location: Washington D.C . R epresentation :

By a vote of the Characterization shall .
By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall MISCONDUCT (DRUG ABUSE) .

Discussion

: The Applicant is seeking an upgrade to “G eneral ( U nder H onorable C onditions) ” in order to reenter the military. 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 s , for additional information regarding .

: ( ) . I n addition to requesting an upgrade in the characterization of service, the Applicant is seeking a change in the narrative reason for reentry into the military. He contends his discharge was not thought through and he cooperated with NCIS in an investigation . The NDRB, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an Applicant's discharge, will change the reason for discharge if such a change is warranted. The Applicant’s record reflects he tested positive for marijuana on a urinalysis taken on 20 December 2007. Per the commanding officer’s letter of 25 January 2008, the Applicant admitted to drug use and was subsequently administratively discharged based on misconduct due to drug abuse. The summary of service documents clearly supports the basis for his discharge due to drug abuse and refute s the Applicant’s contention the “ discharge was not thought through ” . Furthermore, t he Applicant did not submit any evidence regarding his cooperation w ith NCIS , and even if he did, that cooperation, while a noble effort unto itself, would not be deemed sufficient to justif y a change to the narrative reason . Since no other Narrative Reason for Separation could more clearly describe why the Applicant was discharged, a change would be inappropriate. The NDRB determined the awarded discharge characterization was appropriate and a change in the narrative reason would be inappropriate.

: ( ) . The Applicant also contends since his involuntary separation from the Navy he has not been c onvict ed for drugs or had any other problems. 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.

While the Board applauds the Applicant’s post service efforts, the Board determined the evidence of post-service conduct did not mitigate the misconduct which precipitated the discharge. 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 , UCMJ violations involved, and lac k of post service documentation.

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

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A. The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 11, effective 29 April 2005 until Present, 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 | 2012_Navy | ND1200111

Original file (ND1200111.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant requests that his monetary recoupment for his Naval Academy education be waived or mitigated.2. After a review of the Applicant’s service, cooperation with NCIS, misconduct that he admitted to, and recommendations from the chain of command, the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) assigned a General (Under Honorable Conditions)...
USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801458

Original file (MD0801458.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT Applicant’s Issues 1. Urinalysis was Command Directed, therefore not allowed to be used in characterization of discharge or for punishment. The Applicant may petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR), 2 Navy Annex, Washington, DC 20370-5100 to request these changes.After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service,
NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0800850

Original file (ND0800850.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 | ND0801624

Original file (ND0801624.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

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 companies or other financial institutions; documentation of a drug free lifestyle; continued higher education and character witness statements.The Applicant is...
NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0902158

Original file (ND0902158.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

However, per the DD214 separation code, the Applicant did have an administrative board hearing. The Applicant had an administrative board and he provides no new information which would indicate an impropriety or inequity in the resulting discharge.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entriesand discharge process, the Board found Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall and the narrative reason for...
NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1100225

Original file (ND1100225.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to:Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive:USNR (DEP)19900329 - 19900801Active: 19900802 - 19940407 (HON) Period of Service Under Review: Date of Current Re-enlistment: 19940408Age at re-enlistment:Period of Enlistment: YearsExtensionDate of Discharge:19951106Highest Rank/Rate:AK3Length of Service:Year(s)Month(s) 29 Day(s)Education Level:AFQT: 67EvaluationMarks:Performance:NFIRBehavior:NFIROTA: 3.8 Average in...
NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900095

Original file (ND0900095.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to: Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive: USNR (DEP)19930812 - 19940626Active: 19940627 – 19960627 USN 19960628 - 20020627 Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 20020628Age at Enlistment:Period of Enlistment:NFIRDate of Discharge:20071015Highest Rank/Rate:MM1Length of Service: 13 Years Months20 DaysEducation Level:AFQT: NFIREvaluationMarks:Performance:3.8(5)Behavior:3.6(5)OTA: 3.86Awards and...
NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700289

Original file (ND0700289.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall MISCONDUCT. ” 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. With respect to a discharge adjudged by a court-martial, the action of the NDRB is restricted to upgrades based on clemency.
NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1100340

Original file (ND1100340.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. Relief denied.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entriesand 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...
NAVY | DRB | 2015_Navy | ND1401633

Original file (ND1401633.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

” 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 to provide a foundation upon which the Board can grant relief. Additionally, the NDRB has no authority to upgrade a...

Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900622

Similar Decisions