Upgrade.Vet

NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1000351

Original file (ND1000351.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-ATAN, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20091113

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)        20041213 - 20050118     Active:

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20050119     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20080417      Highest Rank/Rate: ATAN
Length of Service : Y ear ( s ) M onth ( s ) 19 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 36
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: 2.33 ( 3 )     Behavior: 1.67 ( 3 )       OTA: 2.00

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):

Periods of UA : 20061012- 20061030 (19 days) ; 20061030- 20061101 (2 days) ; 20071113 - 20071115 (2 days) ; 20071119 - 20071120 (1 day) ; 20071229 - 20080107 (9 days) ; 20080128 - 20080219 (22 days) ; 20080405-20080417 (12 days, surrendered)

NJP :
- 20060510 :      Article (Knowingly receiving stolen property on or about 20060414)
         Awarded: Suspended:

- 20061205 :      Article 86 , (Unauthorized absence - 2 specifications : totaling 21 days)
         Awarded: Suspended:

- 20070222 :      Article ( Unauthorized absence by failing to go to appointed place of duty : restricted personnel muster - 3 specifications )
         Article 92 (Failure to obey an order or regulation: restriction orders - 2 specifications )
         Awarded: Suspended:

- 20080305 :      Article (Unauthorized absence - 4 specifications totaling 34 days)
         Article 107 (False official statement )
         Article 123 (Forgery for altering a medical prescription for Perco cet to indicate an amount of 10 v ice the prescribed amount of 6 )
         Awarded : Susp ended:

S CM : SPCM: C C :

Retention Warning Counseling :
- 20050121 :       For fraudulent induction as evidenced by your failure to disclose required basic enlistment eligibility information. Unborn child not documented (2 dependents total).
- 20060510 :       For deficiencies in performance and conduct as identified at CO’s NJP on 20060510. Violation of the UCMJ, Article 134 – Stolen property: knowingly receiving on or about20060414.

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

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

         “ 08 APR 18 ”
         “ 03 00 2 4 ”
         “ TL: 20061012 – 20061030 (19) , 20061030 – 20061101 (2) , 20071113 – 20071115 (2) , 20071119 – 20071120 (1) , 20071229 – 20080107 (9) , 20080128 – 20080219 (22) , 20080405 – 20080417 (12) ”

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 11 June 2008, 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 s 92, 107, 123, and 134.

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

Applicant’s Issues

1. The Applicant seeks an upgrade for educational opportunities and any other service benefits .
2 . The Applicant contends his discharge is inequitable , because he was going through a lot of problems and was not thinking clearly.
3. The Applicant believes his post-service conduct is worthy of consideration.

Decision

Date : 20 1 1 0203 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 g overnment al 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 two NAVP ERS 1070/613 (Page 13) warnings and four nonjudicial punishments (NJPs) for violations o f the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 86 (Unauthorized absence - 9 specifications: six violations totaling 55 days and three missing restricted muster s ), Article 92 (Failure to obey an order or regulation: restriction orders - 2 specifications by being found in rack after taps with civilian clothes and without his restricted I.D. badge), Article 107 (False official statement), Article 123 (Forgery for altering a medical prescription for Percocet to indicate an amount of 10 vice the prescribed amount of 6) , and Article (Knowingly receiving stolen property). B ased on the offenses committed by the Applicant, his command administratively processed him for separation. When notified of administrative separation processing using the administrative board procedure, the Applicant waived his rights to consult with a qualified counsel, submit a written statement for consideration by the separating authority , and request an administrative board . Subsequent to his last NJP, the Applicant went absent without leave for 12 days, surrendered, and then was discharged in absentia on 18 April 2008.

Issue 1 : (Nondecisional) The Applicant seeks an upgrade for educational opportunities and any other service benefits . 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. Also, t he U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determines eligibility for post-service be nefits, 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.

Issue 2 : (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends his discharge is inequitable , because he was going through a lot of problems and was not thinking clearly. After reviewing the Applicant ’ s service record, the NDRB found that the characterization of the Applicant's discharge as under other than honorable conditions was equitable and consistent with the characterization of discharge given others in similar circumstances. The Applicant’s discharge characterization accurately reflects his service and misconduct that included four NJPs, two retention warnings, and unauthorized absences that totaled 55 days. 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 an upgrade would be inappropriate. Relief denied.

Issue 3: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant believes his post-service conduct is worthy of consideration . Although the Applicant states he has learned his lesson and is now married with three children, 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 A ddendum 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 Under Other Than Honorable Conditions. Relief denied.

Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s s ummary of s ervice, r ecord e ntries, and d ischarge p rocess, 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 , Employment/Educational Opportunitie s , 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 | 2011_Marine | MD1100358

Original file (MD1100358.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

After a thorough review of the record, the NDRB determined that no clemency is warranted. ” 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.
USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0901077

Original file (MD0901077.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Prior to entering the Marine Corps, the Applicant acknowledged complete understanding of the Marine Corps policy concerning illegal use of drugs on 7 July 2006.Based on the offenses committed, processing for administrative separation is mandatory. The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of service, reflects the Applicant’s willful failure to meet the requirements of conduct expected of all Marines, regardless of his grade and length of service...
NAVY | DRB | 2015_Navy | ND1401751

Original file (ND1401751.rtf) Auto-classification: 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 remain GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS) and the narrative reason for separation shall remain MISCONDUCT (SERIOUS OFFENSE). ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the...
NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1000631

Original file (ND1000631.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, and discharge process, the Board found Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall and the narrative reason for separation shall remain . ” 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...
NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0901228

Original file (ND0901228.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Additionally, the NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities. The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflects his willful failure to meet the requirements of his contract with the U.S. Navy and falls far short of that required for an upgrade.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entries, and...
USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0901734

Original file (MD0901734.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 | 2013_Navy | ND1301361

Original file (ND1301361.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant seeks a change in his RE-code to reenlist into the Armed Forces.2. 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...
USMC | DRB | 2012_Marine | MD1200455

Original file (MD1200455.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

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. 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...
NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1101599

Original file (ND1101599.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to: Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive:USNR (DEP)20070326 - 20070614Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Current Enlistment: 20070615Age at Enlistment: Period of Enlistment: YearsExtensionDate of Discharge:20091218Highest Rank/Rate: SALength of Service: Year(s)Month(s)4 Day(s)Education Level:AFQT: 38EvaluationMarks:Performance:3.0(4)Behavior:2.3(4)OTA: 2.96Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):(2)...
USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1002026

Original file (MD1002026.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Secretary of the Navy Instruction 1920.6C (ADMINISTRATIVE SEPARATION OF OFFICERS) effective 15 December 2005 until Present establishes policies, standards and procedures for the administrative separation of Navy and Marine Corps officers from the naval service in accordance with Title 10, United States Code and DoD Directive 1332.30 of 14 March 1997. Representation: By a vote of the Characterization shall .By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall UNACCEPTABLE CONDUCT.Discussion The NDRB,...

Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1000351

Similar Decisions