Upgrade.Vet

NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1000309

Original file (ND1000309.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-ENFN, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20091103

Characterization of Service Received:

Narrative Reason for Discharge:
Authority for Discharge: MILPERSMAN 3630600 [SERIOUS OFFENSE]

Applicant’s Request: Characterization change to:
                  Narrative Reason change to:

Summary of Service
Prior Service:
Inactive:         US N R (DEP)        19881024 - 19890306 ELS Active: 19890419 – 19930404 HON
                  1989 0330 - 19890 418              19930405 – 19950202 HON

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 19950203     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : 2 Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 19970613      Highest Rank/Rate: EN 3
Length of Service : Y ear s M onth s 10 D a ys
Education Level:        AFQT: 31
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: 2.0 ( 3 )      Behavior: 2.5 ( 3 )        OTA: 2.12

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

Periods of UA /C ONF :

NJP:

- 19970506 :      Article , Disrespect to ward superior commissioned officer.
         Article , False official statement .
         Article 123a, Write a dishonorable check with intent to deceive, 4 specifications.
         Article s 134, General article, altered a military identification card with intent to deceive.
         Awarded: Suspended: Vacated 19970527

SCM:     SPCM:    C C :      Retention Warning Counseling:

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214
The NDRB did note an administrative error on the original DD Form 214:

         Remarks, should read “ Continuous Honorable Active Service from 19890419 to 19950202. ”

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:                  Other Documentation:
                  Additional Statements:
         From Applicant:          From/To Representation:          From/To Congress member:

Pertinent Regulation/Law
A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 14, effective 3 October 1996 until 12 December 1997, Article 3630605, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL 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 .

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

Applicant’s Issues

1. The Applicant contends her youth and immaturity were mitigating factors that led to her misconduct.

Decision

Date: 20101202 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 complete d a thorough review of the circumstances that led to her discharge and the discharge process to ensure her discharge met the pertinent standards of equity and propriety. The Applicant’s record of service included for o f the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 89 ( Disrespect toward superior commissioned officer), Article 107 ( False official statement), Article 123a ( Write a dishonorable check with intent to deceive, 4 specifications ) , and Article 134 (General article, alter a military identification card with intent to deceive). Based on the serious offenses committed by the Applicant, command administratively processed for separation. When notified of administrative separation processing using the procedure, the Applicant waived her r ights to consult with a qualified counsel and to submit a written statement for considera tion by the separating authority .

: (Equity ) RELIEF NOT WARRANTED . The Applicant contends her youth and immaturity were mitigating factors that led to her misconduct. While the Applicant may believe that s he made poor decisions due to making youthful mistakes, the record clearly reflects that the Applicant was responsible for her actions at the time of his misconduct. The Applicant was 27 years old when she committed the UCMJ violations and was on her third enlistment in the Navy. 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, Automatic Upgrades, Reenlistment/RE-code , Employment/Educational Opportunities, 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

USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801860

Original file (MD0801860.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

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, and based on the limited post service documentation provided an upgrade would be inappropriate.After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Record, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found ADDENDUM:...
USMC | DRB | 2007_Marine | MD0700069

Original file (MD0700069.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

20020212: Counseling: Advised of deficiencies in performance and conduct (On 20020124 you received a Summary Court-Martial for violation of articles 92x2 and 123a. (20020607) SJA review (date): (20020805)Separation Authority (date): COMMANDER, 2D MARINE AIRCRAFT WING (20020805) Basis for discharge directed: due to: Characterization directed: Date Applicant Discharged: 20020812 Additional Documents Submitted by Applicant and Considered By BoardTotal Number of Pages: 2 Related to Period of...
NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1000864

Original file (ND1000864.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The NDRB determined that the Applicant’s post-service effort does not warrant clemency.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. ” Additional...
NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1000801

Original file (ND1000801.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant’s record of service includednon-judicial punishment (NJP) for of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 80 (Attempts, attempted to purchase items without sufficient funds in bank account), Article 86 (Unauthorized Absence, 19970314-19970317), Article 123a (Making, drawing, uttering check without sufficient funds; 3 Specifications), Article 134 (Dishonorably failing to pay debt), and Article 134 (Altering public record).When notified of administrative separation...
NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1000983

Original file (ND1000983.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Relief denied.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entries, discharge process, and evidence provided by the Applicant,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. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has...
NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00181

Original file (ND00-00181.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ND00-00181 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 991118, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to Honorable. PART IV - INFORMATION FOR THE APPLICANT 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 Directive 1332.28, you may submit a complaint in accordance with Enclosure (5) of that Directive. You...
NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1000120

Original file (ND1000120.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to:Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive:USNR (DEP)19920724 - 19930713Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Current Enlistment: 19930714Age at Enlistment:Period of Enlistment: YearsExtensionDate of Discharge:19980925Highest Rank/Rate:SWCNLength of Service: Year(s)Month(s)12 Day(s)Education Level:AFQT: 38EvaluationMarks:Performance:3.4(3)Behavior:3.3(3)OTA: 3.66Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):Rifle (4)...
USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0800804

Original file (MD0800804.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall MISCONDUCT.Discussion : 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. After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Service Record, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found that Pertinent Regulation/Law A. ” Additional Reviews : Subsequent to...
USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0901504

Original file (MD0901504.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Service Record Entries, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found clemency was not warranted and the sentence awarded the Applicant at his court-martial was appropriate for the offenseshe committed.Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall and the narrative reason for separation shall remain.The Applicant remains eligible for a personal...
USMC | DRB | 2007_Marine | MD0700293

Original file (MD0700293.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

After a thorough review of the Applicant’s record, issues submitted, and post service accomplishments, the Board determined that clemency was not warranted and that the sentence awarded the Applicant at his court-martial was appropriate for the offenses he committed. 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 that...

Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1000309

Similar Decisions