Upgrade.Vet

NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900653

Original file (ND0900653.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-ABEAN, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20090127

Characterization of Service Received:

Narrative Reason for Discharge: COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE

Authority for Discharge: MILPERSMAN

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

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive:         US N R (DEP)        20020328 - 20020629     Active:

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment: 20020630     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years 30 MONTHS Extension
Date of Discharge: 20080402      Highest Rank/Rate: ABE AN
Length of Service : Y ear ( s ) M onth ( s ) 03 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 38
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: 3. 7 ( 4 )      Behavior: 3.5 ( 4 )        OTA: 3. 7 0

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      NDSM GWOTSM GWOTEM NAVY”E” Pistol

Period of C ONF : 20070829-20070917 (20 DAYS)

NJP : SPCM: Retention Warning Counseling :

S CM :
- 20070829 :       Art icle 86 (UA ) 20070614-20070707 ( 33 DAYS)
         Sentence : CONF 25 DAYS
C C :
- 200706xx: Driving under the influence.

- 20071228: Driving under the influence (2 ^nd offense) – convicted on 14 Feb 2008

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 1910-142, SEPARATION BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT - COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE.

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 (U A ) and Article 111 (Drunken operation of a vehicle- if prosecuted in a military court).

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

Applicant’s Issues

1. Record of s ervice (No issues specified) .

Decision

Date: 20 0 9 0423 Location: Washington D.C . R epresentation :

By a vote of the Characterization shall .
By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall MISCONDUCT (SERIOUS OFFENSE) .

Discussion

: ( ) . The Applicant did not identify any Issues to the Board. However, the Board did complete a thorough review of the circumstances which led to his discharge and the discharge process to ensure his discharge met the pertinent standards of equity and propriety. 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 is marred by a S CM for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 86 (U A, for 33 days) and two civilian convictions for driving under the influence, which is a violation of Article 111 (Drunken operation of a vehicle) if prosecuted in a military court. These violations are considered serious offenses, punishable by punitive discharge if adjudicated by a special or general court-martial. The command did not pursue a punitive discharge, but opted instead for administrative discharge. The Board believes the Applicant’s total record of service was taken into account at the time of discharge, thus sparing him from a more unfavorable discharge characterization. Based on the circumstances, and lack of documentation or evidence from the Applicant, the Board determined the awarded discharge characterization was appropriate and 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; attending or completion of higher education (official transcripts) 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 Applicant s statement on the DD Form 293, he only provided service-related documentation as evidence on his behalf. 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 obtain additional evidence or post service documentation he may wish to apply for 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, 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

USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1001596

Original file (MD1001596.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 . ” 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...
NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1100547

Original file (ND1100547.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, to become eligible for the GI Bill, and to re-enlist.2. 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...
NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1001270

Original file (ND1001270.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

He received a General (Under Honorable Conditions) characterization of service and a narrative reason for separation of Misconduct – Commission of a Serious Offense. ” 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...
USMC | DRB | 2012_Marine | MD1201583

Original file (MD1201583.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

When notified of administrative separation processing using the procedure, the Applicant rights to consult with a qualified counsel, submit a written statement, and request an administrative board. The Applicant could have provided documentation as detailed in the Post-Service Conduct paragraph in the Addendum , however, completion of these items alone does not guarantee an upgrade from an unfavorable discharge as each discharge is reviewed by the Board on a case by case basis to determine...
NAVY | DRB | 2015_Navy | ND1500479

Original file (ND1500479.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. Board Issue: (Decisional) (Equity) Effective 6 February 2015, the NDRB is authorized to change a NDRB Applicant’s Reenlistment Code if related to an accompanying change in discharge characterization or narrative, but this authority is strictly limited to those cases where an applicant’s narrative reason or characterization of discharge is changed and that change warrants...
USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1002022

Original file (MD1002022.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant’s service record Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entries, the record of trial by Special Court-Martial, and the discharge process, the NDRB determined that clemency was not 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 Applicant’s...
NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1002193

Original file (ND1002193.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

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 from the date of discharge. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are...
USMC | DRB | 2012_Marine | MD1201872

Original file (MD1201872.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 has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities.
USMC | DRB | 2007_Marine | MD0701189

Original file (MD0701189.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Applicant’s Request: Characterization change to: Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive: USMCR (DEP)19960425 - 19961008Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 19961009Period of enlistment: Years MonthsDate of Discharge:19981030Length of Service: Yrs Mths22 DysEducation Level: Age at Enlistment:AFQT: 32MOS: 0151 Highest Rank: Fitness reports: Proficiency/Conduct marks (# of occasions): 4.0(3)/3.9(3)Awards and Decorations (per DD 214): Rifle...
NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0701185

Original file (ND0701185.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Applicant’s Request: Characterization change to: Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive: USNR (DEP)19960227 - 19960423Active: 1983 - 1986 USA 1993 - 1964 Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 19960424Period of enlistment: Years Months Date of Discharge:19980807Length of Service: Yrs Mths14 DysEducation Level: Age at Enlistment:AFQT: Highest Rank/Rate:AKAAEvaluation marks:Performance: () Behavior:()OTA: Awards and Decorations (per DD 214): Rifle ,...

Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900653

Similar Decisions