Upgrade.Vet

NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0902558

Original file (ND0902558.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-DCFN, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20090916

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)        20040419 - 20040901     Active:

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20040902     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20080108      Highest Rank/Rate: DCFN
Length of Service : Y ear ( s ) M onth ( s ) 07 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 53
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: 4.0 ( 2 )      Behavior: 2.0 ( 2 )        OTA: 3.00

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

Periods of UA /C ONF :

NJP :
- 20061011 :      Article (Failure to obey an order or regulation – failed to contact ship with information for recall)
         Awarded: Suspended:

- 20071117 :      Article (Failure to obey an order or regulation – refused mandatory anthrax immunization vaccine)
         Awarded: Suspended:

S CM : SPCM: C C :

Retention Warning Counseling:
- 20071117 :      For violation of A rticle 92 NJP held this date.

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 :

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

Applicant’s Issues

1. The Applicant contends his discharge is inequitable , because he refused the Anthrax vaccine , which he believed to be an unlawful order .
2 . The Applicant believes his post-service conduct is worthy of consideration.

Decision

Date: 20101022 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 NAV PERS 1070/613 (Page 13) warning and for o f the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article (Failure to obey an order or regulation - 2 specifications by failing to contact ship with information for recall and refusing mandatory anthrax immunization vaccine ). Based on the offenses committed by the Applicant, command administratively processed for separation. The NDRB did not have the Applicant’s administrative separation package to determine whether or not the Applicant exercised or 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 discharge is inequitable , because it was based upon his refusal to be injected with the anthrax vaccine . The issues the Applicant raised r egarding the legality and safety of the Department of Defens e (DOD) Anthrax Vaccination program are beyond the purview of the NDRB to address. DOD has determined that personnel whose duties are essential to mission critical capabilities are to be vaccinated against anthrax, both for their personal protection and for success of the military mission. The NDRB has no authority to question this determination by DOD. In its review of cases, NDRB is required to adhere to the policies and regulations established by the Department of Defense in determining the propriety an d equity of a discharge. U sing DOD message 121652Z MAR 07 - Resumption of Mandatory Anthrax Vaccine Immunization Program (AVIP), the NDRB found that your case was processed in accordance with established procedure s and that your discharge was equitable. As a member of the United States Pacific Command F orward D eployed Naval Forces, it was your duty to obey the orders pertaining to AVIP. In this regard, a characterization of service of General (Under Honorable Conditions) was warranted since your record of service constituted a departure from that expected of a Sailor in the U.S. Navy by your refusal to obey a lawful order . The evidence of record does not demonstrate the Applicant was not responsible for his actions or should not be held accountable. The award of NJP was proper and equitable . An upgrade to H onorable would be inappropriate. Relief denied.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant believes his post-service conduct is worthy of consideration. Although the Applicant provided some documentation pertaining to college and community service and has stayed out of trouble, he failed to provide any additional 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 additional 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. The Board determined the characterization of service received, General (Under Honorable Conditions), was an appropriate characterization considering the length of service and the UCMJ violations involved . B ased on the limited post - service documentation , an upgrade would be inappropriate. 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 .

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 11, effective 26 April 2005 until 19 May 2008, 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 .

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 | 2006_Navy | ND0600077

Original file (ND0600077.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Applicant incorporates by reference the copy of the District Court’s Order submitted as supporting documentation. 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
USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0800317

Original file (MD0800317.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Sentence - ,, Types of Documents SubmittedRelated to Military Service: DD 214: Service and/or 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 Representation: From Member of Congress: Other Documentation (Describe) DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE...
CG | DRB | 2013 - Discharge Review Board (DRB) | 2013 027

Original file (2013 027.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Majority board recommends partial relief on the applicant’s Character of Service, based on the post-policy issued in ALCOAST 562/08. And, ALCOAST 254/05 on May 12, 2005 stated the following: “The Coast Guard may resume Anthrax vaccinations for personnel assigned to designated commands but only under the condition that personnel scheduled to receive the Anthrax vaccination may ACCEPT or REFUSE the vaccination. Board Conclusion: The Majority Board (3-2) recommends no relief to the...
NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00434

Original file (ND03-00434.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

My decision to refuse the anthrax vaccine was not one that I took lightly. 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).The issues raised regarding the legality and safety of the Department of Defenses’ (DOD) Anthrax Vaccination program are beyond the purview of the NDRB to address. As this time, the Applicant has not provided any documentation for the Board...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-00203

Original file (BC-2004-00203.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

On 15 February 2000, applicant submitted a personal letter of resignation in lieu of Discharge Review Board action (DRB) wherein he requested an honorable discharge. His rebuttal to the referral OPR, dated 25 May 2000, stated he refused the order to participate in AVIP because he considered it an illegal order as the anthrax vaccine was considered “experimental.” On 14 December 2000, the Secretary of the Air Force (SAF) accepted his resignation in lieu of an administrative DRB and he was...
NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01188

Original file (ND02-01188.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ND02-01188 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020820, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. (See Document 21) 3) In 1996, Michigan Biologic Products Institute (MBPI) filed an IND application to the FDA showing a designation for'inhalation anthrax', changing the 'route of administration', and changing the 'vaccine schedule'. 312.3 1996 IND (Investigation New Drug) application 1998 and 1999 IND application...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-00944

Original file (BC-2004-00944.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

A federal court recently ruled that the AVIP violated United States law because the vaccine was considered investigational and it’s license was never finalized. They stated they would not take any further action on his request. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant notes the federal judge who issued the first injunction order has recently remanded the FDA’s Final Rule back to the FDA and has ordered a...
NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0701006

Original file (ND0701006.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

A review of the Applicant’s service record indicates the Applicant had only one adverse action in his record; the non-judicial punishment for refusal to submit to anthrax vaccination. 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 the discharge was proper but inequitable based on current anthrax policies and regulations. This...
NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00327

Original file (ND03-00327.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

000124: Memorandum for the Record (Applicant directed to report to Naval Station Rota immunization clinic to begin the Anthrax vaccination series).Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (On or about 0800, 000125 you failed to report to the Naval Station, Rota Hospital to begin the required Anthrax Vaccination program as ordered by CTRCS P_ R_ in accordance with DoD and Navy policy. (On or about 01300, 000411 you were ordered to begin required Anthrax Vaccination program at the Naval...
NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1301783

Original file (ND1301783.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Types of Documents Submitted/reviewedRelated to Military Service: DD 214:Service/Medical Record:Other Records: Related to Post-Service Period: Employment: Finances: Education/Training: Health/Medical Records: Rehabilitation/Treatment: Criminal Records: Personal Documentation: Community Service: References: Department of VA letter: Other Documentation: Additional Statements:From Applicant: From/To Representation:From/ToCongress member: DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD...

Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0902558

Similar Decisions