Upgrade.Vet

NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0902261

Original file (ND0902261.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-MASN, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20090817

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)        20011206 - 20020710     Active:          20020711 - 20060706

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20060707     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20080925      Highest Rank/Rate: MA 2
Length of Service : Y ear ( s ) M onth ( s ) 19 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 42/43
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: 3.8 ( 4 )      Behavior: 3.3 ( 4 )        OTA: 3.54

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      (2)

Periods of UA /C ONF :

NJP :
- 20080813 :      Article (Absence without leave on 20080617 go from his duty section)
         Article (Assaulting or willfully disobeying superior commissioned officer – told to stay away from ex-girlfriend, disobeyed said order)
         Article (Failure to obey order or regulation – derelict in performance of duty by not patrolling housing units located off base)
         Article (False official statements - requested and granted to patrol off base housing units, failed to do so)
         Awarded: Suspended:

S CM :

SPCM:

C C : A warrant was served to the Applicant for charges of Stalking and Harassment. The Applicant had to post $50k bail.
Out of respect for his occupation (Master-at Arms), the civilian authorities allowed hi m to turn himself in vice being arrested at his place of occupation. This incident is directly related to the NJP on 20080813.

Retention Warning Counseling:
- 20080813 :      For violation of articles 86, 90, 92, and 107, CO’s NJP held this date.

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

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

         “ ”
         “ ”
         Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, should read: “ NATIONAL DEFENSE SERVICE MEDAL, NAVY AND MARINE CORPS OVERSEAS SERVICE MEDAL (2), GOOD CONDUCT MEDAL, CERTIFICATE OF APPRECIATION (2), LETTER OF COMMENDATION , LETTER OF APPRECIATION ”
         “CONTINUOUS HONORABLE ACTIVE SERVICE FROM 020711 UNTIL 060706 ”

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 /To Representat ion :          From /To Congress m ember :
Oth er Documentation :

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 23, effective 12 June 2008 until 9 November 2009, 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 (W illfully disobeying superior commissioned officer ), Article (Failure to obey an order or regulation ), and Article (False official statements ).

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

Applicant’s Issues

1. The Appl icant contends his punishment was too harsh for the misconduct, based on his record of service.

Decision

Date: 20 10 0902 Location: Washington D.C. R epresentation :

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 evidence submitted by the Applicant. The Board did complete a thorough review of the circumstances that led to discharge and the discharge process to ensure discharge met the pertinent standards of equity and propriety. The Applicant’s record of service included NAVPERS 1070/613 (Page 13) warning and for o f the Uniform Code of M ilitary Justice (UCMJ): Article (Unauthorized absence on 20080617 by leaving his duty section), Article (W illfully disobeying superior commissioned officer - told to stay away from ex-girlfriend, which he disobeyed said order), Article (Failure to obey order or regulation – derelict in performance of duty by not patrolling housing units located off base) , and Article (False official statements - requested and granted to patrol off - base housing units, which he failed to do so). Additionally, a warrant was served to the Applicant for Stalking and Harassment charges. The Applicant had to post $50 ,000 bail. Out of respect for his occupation (Master-at - Arms), the civilian authorities allowed him to turn himself in instead of being arrested at his place of occupation. Based on the offenses committed by the Applicant, command administratively processed for separation. When notified of administrative separation processing using the procedure, the Applicant waived rights to consult with a qualified counsel, to submit a written statement for consideration by the separating authority, and to request an administrative board.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends his punishment was too harsh for the misconduct, based on his record of service. Despite a Sailor’s prior record of se rvice, certain serious offenses warrant separation from the Naval S ervice in order to maintain proper order and discipline. The NDRB did a thorough review of the Applicant’s record and found that the civilian incident that led to his NJP and eventual discharge was not an isolated incident. The civilian authorities had graciously told the Applicant several times to stay away and stop trying to contact his ex- girlfriend. The Applicant continued to ignore those requests by the civilian authorities and proceeded to drive to his ex-girlfriend ’ s residence, while on duty in uniform, using his position of authority to access her whereabouts. The A pplicant’s actions and pending civilian charges caused the command to lose trust and confidence in him to remain in his rating and in the Naval Service. The NDRB determined that the command was justified and the Applicant’s separation was warranted. Relief denied.

It should be noted that the Applicant served honorably from 11 July 2002 to 6 July 2006 and that the General discharge pertains to his most current enlistment.

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. The Applicant is directed to the Addendum, specifically the paragraphs titled Additional Reviews, and Post-Service Conduct .

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 veterans organizations such as the American Legion and the Disabled American 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 their 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 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 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 naval 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 certificates (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 at 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 | 2004_Navy | ND04-00457

Original file (ND04-00457.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Did not appeal and elected not to submit a rebuttal to the Letter of Reprimand.971021: Punitive Letter of Reprimand issued to Applicant.971029: CO, Naval Nuclear Power Training Command, reports to CHNAVPERS and CNET Applicant’s NJP and advised that Applicant has been administratively removed form the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program and applying for...
USMC | DRB | 2012_Marine | MD1200904

Original file (MD1200904.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Additionally, the NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities. An Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge is warranted when a member engages in conduct involving one or more acts or omissions that constitute a significant departure from the conduct expected of members of the Naval Service.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entries, and...
USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1101681

Original file (MD1101681.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 | 2001_Navy | ND01-00773

Original file (ND01-00773.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ND01-00773 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010515, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. The discharge shall remain: GENERAL UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS/PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-140 (formerly 3630600). The applicant’s second issue states: “(American Legion's Equity Issue) This former member further requests that the Board include provision of SECNAVINST 5420.174C,...
NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0902518

Original file (ND0902518.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to:Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive:USNR (DEP)20080104 - 20080715Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Current Enlistment: 20080716Age at Enlistment:Period of Enlistment: YearsExtensionDate of Discharge:20080826Highest Rank/Rate:SNLength of Service: Year(s)Month(s)11 Day(s)Education Level:AFQT: 82EvaluationMarks:Performance:NFIRBehavior:NFIROTA: NFIRAwards and Decorations (per DD 214):NONENJP:-...
NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1101529

Original file (ND1101529.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Department of Veterans Affairs provided the Applicant’s official medical records for the Board’s review. Based on the medical and service documentation of record, the NDRB determined the Applicant’s diagnosed PTSD (non-combat related) was a mitigating and contributing factor associated with his in-service misconduct; however, the NDRB did not consider the issue of PTSD as a reason to absolve completely the Applicant of his misconduct and determined an upgrade to Honorable would not be...
NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1002275

Original file (ND1002275.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 | 2008_Navy | ND0801534

Original file (ND0801534.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

In the absence of more concrete evidence than the Applicant’s statement, the Board determined the discharge did not warrant an 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...
NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1101253

Original file (ND1101253.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

In reviewing cases, the NDRB is not bound by decisions of the civilian courts to reduce or dismiss charges subsequent to the Applicant’s discharge. ” 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...
USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1100687

Original file (MD1100687.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. Partial relief warranted.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 the discharge was proper but not equitable. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the...

Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0902261

Similar Decisions