Upgrade.Vet

NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1000142

Original file (ND1000142.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-ABEAR, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20091015

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)        20021025 - 20030910     Active:

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20030911     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20060519      Highest Rank/Rate: ABEAN
Length of Service : Y ear ( s ) M onth ( s ) 09 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 38
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: 3.0 ( 2 )      Behavior: 2.0 ( 2 )        OTA: 2.58

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):

Periods of UA /C ONF : UA : 20060131-20060202 ( 2 days ); 20050928-20051003 (5 days); 20051010-20051012 (1 day); 20051024-20051025 (1 day); 20051123 - 2005112 9 ( 6 days ) / CONF:

NJP :
- 20051215 :      Article (Unauthorized absences - 12 specifications totaling 21 days, 10 hours and 15 minutes)
         Specification 1: 20050906 - 20050908 ( 2 days )
         Specification 2: 20051005 - 20051006 ( 1 day )
         Specification 3: 20050928 - 20051003 ( 5 days )
         Specification 4: 20051010 - 2005101 2 ( 1 day )
         Specification 5: 0600-0715, 20051007 ( 1 hour 15 minutes )
         Specification 6: 2000-2100, 20051017 ( 1 hour )
         Specification 7: 20051024 - 20051025 (1 day)
         Specification 8: 0600-0800, 20051111 ( 2 hours )
         Specification 9: 0700, 20051114 - 0645, 20051115 ( 23 hours, 45 minutes )
         Specification 10: 0700-0800, 20051117 ( 1 hour )
         Specification 11: 0700-0715, 20051130 ( 15 minutes )
         Specification 12: 20051123 - 200511 2 9 ( 6 days )
         Awarded: Suspended:

- 20060309 :      Article ( Unauthorized absence - 6 specifications )
         Awarded: Suspended:

- 20060320 :      Article ( Unauthorized absence - 9 specifications of failing to go to restricted men’s muster)
         Awarded: Suspended:

S CM : SPCM: C C :

Retention Warning Counseling :
- 20051215 :       For unauthorized absence, 12 specifications.

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

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

         “ 03 SEP 11 ”
         “ 06JAN31 - 06FEB02; 05SEP28 - 05OCT03; 05OCT10 - 05OCT11; 05OCT24 – 05OCT25; 05NOV23 - 05NOV29 ”

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:          Rehabilitation/Treatment:                  Criminal Records:
         Personal Documentation :          Community Service:                References:
         Department of VA letter:                  Oth er Documentation:
                  Additional Statements :
         From Applicant:          From /To Representation:          From /To Congress m ember :

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 .

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

Applicant’s Issues

1. The Applicant seeks an upgrade for all service benefits.
2 . The Applicant contends his discharge is unjustified based on the circumstances at the time.

Decision

Date: 2010 12 02 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 Military Justice (UCMJ): (Unauthorized absence - 27 specifications : 9 of which were failing to go to restricted men’s muster and the other 18 UAs spanned from 15 minutes to 6 days, altogether totaling 25 days, 11 hours , and 30 minutes ) . Based on the offenses committed by the Applicant, command administratively processed for separation. When notified of administrative separation processing using the administrative board 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.

: (Nondecisional) The Applicant seeks an upgrade for all 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.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends his discharge is unjustified based on the circumstances (personal issues) at the time. There is no evidence in the record, nor did the Applicant provide any evidence , to indicate he attempted to u s e the numerous services available for service members who undergo personal problems during their enlistment such as the Navy Chaplain, Navy Relief Society, Family Advocacy Programs, or even the Red Cross. The Board presumes regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs in the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary. As such, this Board presumed that the Applicant’s discharge was regular in all respects. The Applicant ’ s 27 specifications of unauthorized absence in a four - month span indicate a pattern of misconduct and do not align with the Applicant’s statement on his DD Form 293 that he was given permission to go to Florida for three weeks to attend to his fiancée. The evidence of record did not show that the Applicant was either not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions. The NDRB determined that the Applicant’s continued misconduct (unauthorized absence) warrant ed separation from the naval service in order to maintain proper order and discipline. 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 , Service Benefits 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 | 2007_Navy | ND0700031

Original file (ND0700031.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Service Record Entries, Medical Record Entries, Elements of Discharge and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found the Applicant’s discharge proper and equitable. Additionally, the NDRB does not have the authority to change a narrative reason for separation to one indicating a medical disability or “PTSD. With respect to a discharge adjudged by a court-martial, the action of the...
NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700758

Original file (ND0700758.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Date: 20071212Location: Washington D.C Representation: Discussion Issue 1: either which the Board cannot form the basis of relief for the Applicant, or the Board does not have the authority to grant the relief for which the Applicant petitioned. ” Additional Reviews : Subsequent to a document review, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application is received at the NDRB within 15 years from the date of discharge. There is no requirement or law that...
NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0601032

Original file (ND0601032.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Elements of Discharge [REQUESTED BY MEMBER] Discharge Process: Voluntary: Requested by MemberDate Member Requested Separation:20051024Member Requested Separation Due To: BY COURT MARTIALCharacterization Requested:UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDIONSmember Recognized Least Favorable:Recommendation of Commanding Officer (date): NONEDischarge directed by (date): COMMANDING OFFICER, TRANSIENT PERSONNEL UNIT, NORFOLK, 20041024Narrative reason directed: BY COURT MARTIALCharacterization...
NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801129

Original file (ND0801129.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.Desires medical benefits.2. The Board determined based on the numerous violations of the UCMJ 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 :...
NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700032

Original file (ND0700032.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

19920713: Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (Violation UCMJ Article 86-UA on 19920428; Article 91-Disobey lawful order from PO1 on 19920428; Article 92-Underage drinking on 19920503; Article 134-Communicate a threat to PO1, PO2, and a SN on 19920503), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.19920714: Applicant to unauthorized absence at 0700 on 19920714.19920714: Applicant from unauthorized...
NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900829

Original file (ND0900829.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Therefore, relief is denied.After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Former ser Summary of Service, Record Entries, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, theBoard 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...
NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900079

Original file (ND0900079.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 accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member’s overall character.The Applicant provided no documentation in support of his request. There are veteran’s organizations, such as the American Legion, willing to...
NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1001479

Original file (ND1001479.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant contendsan upgrade is warranted because all the offenses that constituted the pattern of misconduct were subject of a SPCM, and he did not receive a punitive discharge, Naval Military Personnel Manual (MILPERSMAN )1910-704.2(5) applies. The NDRB voted unanimously to upgrade the characterization of service but not change the narrative reason for separation.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, and medical...
NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1300125

Original file (ND1300125.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

of a controlled substance) on 5 October 2005, which is the day before she provided a urine sample for a random drug test. ” 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 | 2006_Navy | ND0601067

Original file (ND0601067.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Elements of Discharge: [INVOLUNTARY] Discharge Process: Date Notified:19910522Reason for Discharge Least Favorable Characterization: Date Applicant Responded to Notification: 19910528Rights Elected at Notification:Consult with Counsel Administrative Board Obtain Copies Submit Statement(s) (date)GCMCA Review Recommendation of Commanding Officer (date): UNDATEDDischarge directed by (date):BUPERS 19910619Narrative reason directed:Characterization directed: Date Applicant Discharged: 19910702...

Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1000142

Similar Decisions