Upgrade.Vet

NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900762

Original file (ND0900762.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-IT3, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20090218

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)        20020220 - 20020722     Active:          20020724 - 20060209

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment: 20060210     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20080314      Highest Rank/Rate: IT3
Length of Service : Y ear ( s ) M onth ( s ) 05 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 53
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: 3.5 ( 2 )      Behavior: 3.0 ( 2 )        OTA: 3.42

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      Rifle Pistol

Periods of UA /C ONF :

NJP : 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 :

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 11, effective 31 May 2005 and Present, Article 1910-106, SEPARATION IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT-MARTIAL.

B. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part IV, Para 403m(7)(b), Presumption Concerning Court-Martial Specifications .

C . 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 .

Pertinent Regulation/Law (cont)

D . 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 128 ( Assault ) and Article 134 ( Indecent acts ) .

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

Applicant’s Issues

1. Would like my record to reflect no adverse action - had no other disciplinary action in 68 months of service.

Decision

Date: 20 0 9 0507 Location: Washington D.C . R epresentation :

By a vote of the Characterization shall .
By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT MARTIAL .

Discussion

: ( ) . The Applicant is seeking an upgrade to general (under honorable conditions) so that his record will reflect no adverse action. The Applicant admits he requested separation in lieu of trial but contends he has had no other disciplinary action in 68 months of service. 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. Despite a service member’s prior record of service, certain serious offenses, even though isolated, warrant separation from the Naval service in order to maintain proper order and discipline. In a signed statement of 6 September 2007, the Applicant requested an administrative discharge under other than honorable conditions in lieu of a trial by court-martial. He consulted with counsel and was fully advised of the implications of his request. The Applicant understood that if discharged under other than honorable conditions, it might deprive him of virtually all veterans' benefits based upon his current enlistment, and that he might expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life in situations wherein the type of military service rendered or the character of discharge received fr om the military may have a bearing. The Applicant stated he understood the elements of the offenses with which he was charged. He admitted he was guilty of violating Article 92 ( Dereliction of duty ) , Article 128 ( Assault , unlawfully str iking a Seaman on the buttock and thighs with a baton ) , and Article 134 ( Indecent assault , touching his penis to a Seaman ’s left thigh, forcing her hands to touch the crotch of his pants and penis, and touching her breast, with the intent to gratify his lust and sexual desires).

Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflects his willful failure to meet the requirements of his contract and falls far short of that required for an upgrade of his characterization of service. Based on the seriousness of offenses committed, detrimental impact of Applicant’s conduct on good order and discipline, length of service and lack of mitigating circumstances, the Board determined an upgrade is not warranted. Even though the Applicant has no record of disciplinary action, the record accurately reflects charges were preferred to a special court martial based on the previously discussed misconduct. The Applicant requested and was administratively separated instead of having his case referred to a Special Court Martial. There is no justification for altering the Applicant’s record to “show no adverse action”. The Board determined the awarded discharge was appropriate and any change would be inappropriate.

After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Record Entries, Discharge Process and issues presented 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 NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment or educational opportunities. Regulations limit the NDRB ’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 NDRB 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 NDRB 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 NDRB B oard 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 | 2003_Navy | ND03-01391

Original file (ND03-01391.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ND03-01391 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030820. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. In the acknowledgement letter, the Applicant was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing.
NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700077

Original file (ND0700077.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Elements of Discharge: [SEPARATION IN LIEU OF TRIAL] Date Charge(s) Preferred: 20050609Charges and Specifications:Article 86: (3 specs), Unauthorized absenceDate Applicant Submitted SILT request: 20050613 Consulted with or Waived Counsel: Waived Acknowledged Understanding Elements: Acknowledged Guilt to: Charges preferred - Article 86 (unauthorized absence) BCD/DD authorized for offense(s) YES Acknowledged Consequences of OTH: Type of Characterization Requested: Commanding Officer...
NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900706

Original file (ND0900706.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Therefore, relief is denied.After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Record Entries, Discharge Process and issues presented 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...
USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0600717

Original file (MD0600717.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions) and the Narrative Reason for Separation be changed to “ Voluntary Separation.” The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the Applicant’s service was discovered by...
NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600499

Original file (ND0600499.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions). Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant’s DD Form 214 (Member 4)Applicant’s DD Form 214 (Member 1) PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: USNR (DEP) 20010922 -...
NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1200446

Original file (ND1200446.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant received Honorable discharges for two previous enlistments. ” 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 | 2013_Marine | MD1300504

Original file (MD1300504.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to: Narrative Reason change to:COMPLETION OF REQUIRED ACTIVE SERVICE Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive:USMCR (DEP)20100402 - 20101128Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Current Enlistment: 20101129Age at Enlistment: Period of Enlistment: Years MonthsDate of Discharge:20120824Highest Rank:Length of Service: Year(s)Month(s)26 Day(s)Education Level: AFQT:34MOS: 0311Proficiency/Conduct Marks (# of occasions):()/()Fitness Reports:...
NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0901806

Original file (ND0901806.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.
NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01245

Original file (ND03-01245.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ND03-01245 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030718. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable or general/under honorable conditions. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (C and D).Issue 1: The Applicant contend “what I was charged for, in the...
NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0901083

Original file (ND0901083.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Representation: By a vote of the Characterization shall .By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall .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.In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include...

Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900762

Similar Decisions