Upgrade.Vet

NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900884

Original file (ND0900884.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-CSSN, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20090306

Characterization of Service Received:

Narrative Reason for Discharge: (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)        20020912 - 20030616     Active:

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment: 20030617     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20061129      Highest Rank/Rate: C SSN
Length of Service : Y ear ( s ) M onth ( s ) 13 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 34
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: NFIR         Behavior: NFIR OTA: NFIR
Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      (2) (3)

Periods of C ONF :

NJP :
- 20040129 :       Art icle 92 ( Failure to obey a lawful general order ) , 2 specifications
         Awarded : Susp ended :

- 20061012 :       Article 86 ( UA ) , 4 specifications
         Aw arded : Susp ended:
S CM :

- 20060826 :       Art icle 92 (Failure to obey a lawful written order or regulation)
         Article 134 (Disorderly conduct, drunkenness)
         Sentence :
         CA Action: 20060826 Approved findings and sentence.

SPCM: C C :

Retention Warning Counseling :
- 20040129 :       For failure to obey a lawful general order (2 specifications).

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

The Applicant did not state any issues.
Decision

Date : 20 0 9 0702 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 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 discharg e if such change is warranted. 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 did not identify any issues to the Board ; h owever, the Board did complete a thorough review of the circumstances which led to discharge to ensure discharge met the pertinent standards of equity and propriety. The Applicant’s record of service reflects one NAVPERS 1070/613 (Page 13) warning, two nonjudicial punishments ( NJPs ) for violation s of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) : Article 86 (U nauthorized absence , 4 specifications) and Article 92 (Failure to obey order, regulation, 2 specifications); and one summary court-martial ( SCM ) for violation of the UCMJ : Article 92 (Failure to obey order, regulation) and Article 134 (Disorderly conduct, drunkenness). Based on the offenses committed by the Applicant, command administratively processed for separation (misconduct, commission of a serious offense, and alcohol treatment failure) . When processed for a dministrative s eparation, the Applicant waived rights to consult with qualified counsel and request an a dministrative b oard, but elected to submit a written statement.

(Decisional) ( ) . Although t he Applicant did not identify an y decisional i ssues which the Board could consider to recharacterize his discharge , he did submit a letter from his private psychologist who stated that she diagnosed the Applicant with Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) (post-service) and he is now on medication. The psychologist noted that the Applicant has “more ability to reflect, more insight, and an overall sense of increased maturity … Now he is not drinking … Now that his ADD is treated , he is more stable, with increased ability to self-manage.” While the Boar d applauds the Applicant’s post-service treatment success , the Board determined that he did not provid e enough evidence to show that he was either not responsible for his conduct while on active duty or that he should not be held accountable for his actions due to his having ADD while on active duty .

Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s s ummary of s ervice, service r ecord entries and d ischarge p rocess, 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 app earance hearing for a period of fiftee n years from the date of his discharge. The Applicant is directed to the Addendum, specifically the paragraphs titled Additional Review , Automatic Upgrades and Post-Service Conduct.

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 92 (Fai lure to obey order, regulation) .

ADDENDUM: Information for the Applicant

Complaint Procedures : If you believe 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 : 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. 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. There are vetera ns organizations such as the American Legion and the Association of Service Disable Veterans that are willing to provide guidance to former service members in their efforts to obtain a discharge upgrade. 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 U .S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determines eligibility for post-service benefits, not the NDRB . 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 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 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 is processed subsequently for an administrative involuntary separation or is referred to a court martial for misconduct, the disability evaluation is suspended 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 d ischarge 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 BCNR can grant this type of narrative reason change.

Automatic Upgrades - There is no law or regulation that provides for an unfavorable discharge to be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct subsequent to leaving n aval service.

Post-Service Conduct : The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. 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 support a post-service conduct upgrade includes, but is not limited to: a verifiable continuous employment record; marriage and children’s birth certificate s (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; attendance 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 in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member’s overall character.

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 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 | 2010_Navy | ND1000849

Original file (ND1000849.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...
NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1200922

Original file (ND1200922.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. A request for a waiver can be submitted during the processing of a formal application for reenlistment through a recruiter.
NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900498

Original file (ND0900498.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 | 2010_Navy | ND1000531

Original file (ND1000531.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

A request for a waiver can be submitted during the processing of a formal application for reenlistment through a recruiter.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entries, and administrative discharge process, the Board found Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS) and the narrative reason for separation shall remain ALCOHOL REHABILITATION FAILURE.The Applicant...
NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0901444

Original file (ND0901444.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

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, a thorough review of the circumstances which led to the Applicant’s discharge and his discharge process revealed no issues of equity or propriety.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entriesand...
NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1301195

Original file (ND1301195.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

ND13-01195 ee Docket No, NDIS-01195 DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD {NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT APPLICANT’S ISSUES 1. You may view DoD Instruction 1332.28 and other Decisional Documents by going online at “http://Boards law.af mil.” : 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 | 2009_Marine | MD0900686

Original file (MD0900686.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT Applicant’s Issues 1. Summary: 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 Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall remain “Bad Conduct Discharge,” and the narrative reason for separation shall remain “Court-Martial.” The Applicant...
NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1101054

Original file (ND1101054.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Additionally, the NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of qualifying for VA benefits. As such, this issue does not serve to provide a foundation upon which the NDRB can grant relief.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...
NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900545

Original file (ND0900545.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT Applicant’s Issues 1. 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...
USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1001490

Original file (MD1001490.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Given the unique circumstances involved in the Applicant’s individual case, the traumatic impact of documented, personalevents that occurred in Iraq, and the timing of the discharge in relation to the misconduct of record, the NDRB determined that the discharge, as awarded, was inequitable.In accordance with the MARCORSEPMAN, a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge is warranted when the quality of the member’s service has been honest and faithful, but significant negative aspects of...

Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900884

Similar Decisions