Upgrade.Vet

NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900823

Original file (ND0900823.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-AO3, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20090225

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)        19981014 - 19990216     Active: 19990217 - 20030213

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment: 20030214     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20080925      Highest Rank/Rate: AO2
Length of Service : Y ear ( s ) M onth ( s ) 12 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 77
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: 4.5 ( 6 )      Behavior: 3.2 ( 6 )        OTA: 3.86

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      Pistol (3) (3)

Periods of UA /C ONF :

NJP :
- 20080902 :       Article 92 (Failure to obey a lawful order – 2 specifications )
         Article 111 (Drunken and reckless driving)
         Awarded : Susp ended :

- 20080922 :       Article 86 (Failure to go to appointed place of duty at prescribed time)
         Article 90 (Disobeying a superior commissioned officer)
         Article 134 (Breaking restriction)
         Awarded: Suspended:

S CM : SPCM: C C :

Retention Warning Counseling:

- 2008 0902 :       For violations of UCMJ Articles 92 and 111.

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

The NDRB did note administrative error(s) on the original DD Form 214:

         “CONTINUOUS HONORABLE ACTIVE SERVICE FROM 19990217 UNTIL 20030213 ”

The NDRB will recommend to the Commander, Navy Personnel Command, that the DD 214 be corrected as appropriate.

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. Inequitable discharge based on only two events.
2. Family issues.

Decision

Date: 20 0 9 0528 Location: Washington D.C . R epresentation :

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

Discussion

: ( ) . The Applicant contends his discharge was inequitable because it was based on two events that happened within two weeks of each other caused by his wife’s infidelity. 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 r ecord of service was marred by one retention warning and two NJP s for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 86 ( Failure to go to appointed place of duty ), Article 90 (Disobeying a superior commissioned officer), Article 92 (Failure to obey a lawful order), Article 111 (Drunken and reckless driving) and Article 134 (Breaking restriction). Articles 90, 92, and 111 are considered serious offenses which could have resulted in a punitive discharge and confinement if adjudicated and awarded as part of a sentenc e 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.

There is no evidence in the Applicant’s records, nor did he provide any documented information, to indicate he informed his chain of command of family problems and did not receive the assistance, leave, or help he asked for. Additionally, the Applicant makes no mention of, nor provides documented proof, if he attempted to use any one of the numerous family support programs sponsored by or for military service members. These programs and services, such as Family Advocacy, Navy – Marine Corps Relief Society, Red Cross, the Chaplain, or even Navy medical health personnel if needed, all provide services to members of the military, regardless of grade, in times of need. The Board recognized the Applicant ’ s good record of service up to the point of his multiple acts of misconduct and believes the command took it into consideration upon discharge. The Board determined the awar d ed characterization was appropriate and an upgrade would be inappropriate.

For the Applicant’s awareness, 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. Docum entation 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 rev iewed 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 failed to provide any additional documentation and evidence on his behalf. 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 charact erization of service received, Gener al (Under Honorable Conditions) , was an appropriate characterization considering the length of service and the UCMJ violations involved, and without 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. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 11, effective 26 April 2005 until Present, Article 1910-140, SEPARATION BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT - PATTERN 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 violations of the UCMJ, Article 90 (Disobeying a superior commissioned officer), Article 92 (Failure to obey a lawful order), and Article 111 (Drunken and reckless driving).

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 | 2009_Navy | ND0900656

Original file (ND0900656.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Board reviewed the evidence of record and the aforementioned misconduct and determined there is sufficient evidence to support discharge due to a pattern of misconduct and the fact that he had completed 90 percent of his enlistment does not preclude the separation authority from involuntarily separating him. However, the Applicant provides no documented information he informed his chain of command of the deaths of his family members and did not receive the assistance, support or leave...
USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0902090

Original file (MD0902090.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The NDRB determined the Applicant’s marital problems were not mitigating factors in his misconduct.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 fifteen years from the date of discharge. ...
NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801194

Original file (ND0801194.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Sailor and the Board determined 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 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...
USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801649

Original file (MD0801649.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 provided a personal statement and as evidence of post-service accomplishments. The Board determined the characterization of service received, “Under Other Than Honorable Conditions”, was an...
NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801026

Original file (ND0801026.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

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. Additionally, the Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities. Additionally, the NDRB does not have the authority...
NAVY | DRB | 2015_Navy | ND1500591

Original file (ND1500591.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. There is no requirement or law that grants recharacterization solely on the issue of obtaining veterans benefits and this issue does not serve to...
USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1001324

Original file (MD1001324.rtf) Auto-classification: 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 Applicant’s date of...
USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801914

Original file (MD0801914.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Board determined the awarded discharge characterization was appropriate for the numerous NJP’s and UCMJ violations involved and an upgrade based on youth and immaturity 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 ADDENDUM: Information for the Applicant Complaint Procedures : If you believe that the decision in your case...
USMC | DRB | 2007_Marine | MD0700751

Original file (MD0700751.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Medical and Service Record Entries, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found that Summary of ServicePrior Service: Inactive: USMCR (DEP)20020725 - 20020902Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 20020903Years Contracted:; Extension: Date of Discharge:20051222Length of Service: 03 Yrs 03Mths20 DysLost Time:Days UA: Days Confined: Education...
USMC | DRB | 2014_Marine | MD1400154

Original file (MD1400154.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to: Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive:USMCR (DEP)20080620 - 20090713Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Current Enlistment: 20090714Age at Enlistment: Period of Enlistment: Years MonthsDate of Discharge:20130713Highest Rank:Length of Service: Year(s)Month(s)00 Day(s)Education Level: AFQT:91MOS: 1142 / 1171Proficiency/Conduct Marks (# of occasions):(13)/(13)Fitness Reports: Awards and Decorations (per...

Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900823

Similar Decisions