Upgrade.Vet

NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0902273

Original file (ND0902273.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-AMAN, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20090819

Characterization of Service Received:

Narrative Reason for Discharge:

Authority for Discharge: MILPERSMAN

Applicant’s Request:      Characterization change to:
         Narrative Reason change to:       COMPLETION OF ACTIVE DUTY

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive:         US N R (DEP)        19990915 - 20000711     Active: 20000712 - 20040708

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20040709     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20050603      Highest Rank/Rate: AM3
Length of Service : Y ear ( s ) M onth ( s ) 25 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 33
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: NFIR         Behavior: NFIR OTA: NFIR

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):

Periods of UA /C ONF :

NJP :
- 20041105 :       Article (Disrespectf ul in language and deportment - 2 specifications )
         Article 1 12 (Drunk on duty)
         Article 134 (Drunk and disorderly)
         Awarded : Susp ended:

S CM :

SPCM:

CC Citation: 1
- 20041108 :       Offense: Felony hit and run
         Sentence : Decision made not to prosecute by authorities

C C :
- 20040907 :       Offense: Vehicle improperly stopped on the highway
         Sentence : Fined $30.00, court cost $77.00

- 20041018 :       Offense: Reckless driving
         Sentence : License suspended for 6 months, court cost $67.00

- 20041101 :       Offense: Operating an uninspected vehicle
         Sentence : Fined $35.00, court cost $67.00

Retention Warning Counseling :
- 20041105 :       For disrespectful in language and deportment toward a CPO on 20040712 and disrespectful in language and deportment toward two CPOs on 20040922, drunk on duty on 20040922 and drunk and disorderly on 20040712.

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 000712 UNTIL 040708 ”

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. Navy Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 11, 29 April 2005 until 14 May 2008, Article 1910-152, SEPARATION BY REASON OF ALCOHOL REHABILITATION FAILURE.

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 .

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

Applicant’s Issues
1. The Applicant contends his discharge is improper , because he feels he was not an alcohol failure.
2 . The Applicant believes his post-service conduct is worthy of consideration.

Decision
Date : 2010 0916 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 eviden ce 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 Military Justice (UCMJ): Article (Disrespectful in language and deportment - 2 specifications on two different occasions by calling a Chief Petty Officer a “faggoty-ass chief” and addressing two other CPOs by saying “You got me now, you faggot ” ), Article 112 (Drunk on duty) , and Article 134 (Drunk and disorderly) . Additionally, the Applicant had numerous civilian convictions in a two - month period, including v ehicle improperly stopped on the highway , r eckless driving , and o perating an uninspected vehicle . 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 co nsult with a qualified counsel and to submit a written statement for consideration by the separating authority . The Applicant was not entitled to an administrative board.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends his discharge is improper , because he feels he was not an alcohol failure. The command had stated in its report that the Applicant was the subject of five alcohol - related incidents. However, the NDRB will only look at the incidents after he extended his enlistment in the Navy on 9 July 2004. On 12 July 2004, the Applicant was admitted to the Naval Medical Center for alcohol poisoning . During his stay, he unplugged his IV and attempted to leave without being discharged. During his D rug and Alcohol Program Advisor screening on 15 July 2004, the Applicant signed a NAVPER S 1070/613 waiving his S ubstance Abuse Rehabilitation Program (S ARP ) screening. He subsequently changed his mind and was screened by SARP on 28 September 2004, where he was diagnosed with alcohol dependence and recommended for Level III Residential I n patient Treatment. The Applicant attended Level III treatment from 10 February to 11 March 2005. Upon completion, the Applicant was to fully participate in the aftercare plan. The commanding officer stated that the Applicant did not comply with the requirements of the aftercare program in that he failed to attend al l of his scheduled aftercare mee tings. Per the Applicant’s own statement on his DD Form 293, he stated, “When I came back from SARP in March of 05, I did make some of the aftercare aboard the ship.” The NDRB determined that the Applicant was an alcohol rehabilitation failure and his discharge was proper and warranted. Relief denied.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant believes his post-service conduct is worthy of consideration. Although the Applicant states he is gainfully employed, has stayed out of trouble , and is still clean from alcohol, he failed to provide any documentary evidence on his behalf for post-service consideration. To warrant an upgrade , the Applicant’s post - service efforts need to be more encompassing. The Applicant could have produced evidence as stated in the Post-Service Conduct paragraph in the addendum with the full understanding completion of these items alone does not guarantee an upgrade. Without post-service documentary evidence, the Board determined the awarded characterization of service shall remain General (Under Honorable Conditions ) . 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 . 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 | 2011_Navy | ND1101044

Original file (ND1101044.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to:Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive:USNR (DEP)20021211 - 20030812Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Current Enlistment: 20030813Age at Enlistment: Period of Enlistment: YearsExtensionDate of Discharge:20070117Highest Rank/Rate: AO3Length of Service: Year(s) Month(s) 05 Day(s)Education Level:AFQT: 32EvaluationMarks:Performance:3.2(5)Behavior:2.6(5)OTA: 3.03Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):Periods...
NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501363

Original file (ND0501363.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. As of this time, the Applicant has not provided any post-service documentation for the Board to consider. 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
NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801638

Original file (ND0801638.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

As a result, the Board determined it would be inappropriate to change the narrative reason.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...
NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1000473

Original file (ND1000473.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.Nondecisional issues: The Applicant seeks an upgrade in his characterization of service at discharge in order to continue his education and to re-enter military service as an officer.2. Based on the arrest and conviction for the second DUI, the Applicant’s command determined that the Applicant was an Alcohol Treatment Failure in accordance with Article 1910-152 of the...
NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1201387

Original file (ND1201387.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

” 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. A request for a waiver can be submitted during the processing of a formal application for reenlistment through a recruiter.
NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1001171

Original file (ND1001171.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Based on a detailed review of the Applicant’s discharge package and supporting documentation, coupled with a review of the medical records and alcohol treatment program documentation, the NDRB determined that the Applicant was an Alcohol Rehabilitation Treatment program failure, that processing for separation was mandatory, and that the discharge was proper as issued. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance...
NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1001115

Original file (ND1001115.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Given the statement of the arresting officer, the SARP determined that the incident did involve alcohol, was alcohol related, and did violate the terms of the Applicant’s aftercare program, OPNAVINST 5350.4D, and Article 1910-152 of the MILPERSMAN.Based on this alcohol-related incident, the command and the medical officers determined the Applicant to be an Alcohol Rehabilitation Treatment Failure; as such, processing for administrative separation was mandatory.9, the Applicant was notified...
NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0701010

Original file (ND0701010.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

However, because the Applicant’s service record did not contain copy of the administrative separation package and the documents submitted by the Applicant appeared regular on its face, the Board considered the Applicant’s discharge in light of a recommendation for an honorable discharge. 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...
NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1201712

Original file (ND1201712.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 | 2010_Navy | ND1000936

Original file (ND1000936.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT Applicant’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.

Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0902273

Similar Decisions