Upgrade.Vet

NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1000904

Original file (ND1000904.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-AOAR, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20100217

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)        19971110 - 19980804     Active: 19980805 - 20010906

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20010907     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20030819      Highest Rank/Rate: AO3
Length of Service: Year Months 13 D ays
Education Level:        AFQT: 42
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: 1.5 ( 2 )      Behavior: 1.0 ( 2 )        OTA: 1.33

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):

NJP :

- 20030327 :      Article , Unauthorized Absence; 2 specifications
         Specification 1: UA from 0600, 20030210 to 1400, 20030 210
         Specification 2: UA from 0600, 20030217 to 0930, 20030217
         Article , Failure to obey lawful order
         Awarded: Suspended: 5 days 5 days

- 20030624 :      Article , Unauthorized Absence fro m 20030416 to 20030602 (48)
         Article , 15 specifications
        Specification s 1 thru 5 : NFIR
         Specification 6 : Failed to obey lawful order by not going to restricted personnel muster; 0630, 20030609
         Specification 7 : Failed to obey lawful order by not going to restricted personnel muster; 1130 , 20030609
         Specification 8 : Failed to obey lawful order by not going to restricted personnel muster; 0630 , 200306 10
         Specification 9 : Failed to obey lawful order by not going to restricted personnel muster; 1130 , 20030610
         Specification 10 : Failed to obey lawful order by not going to restricted personnel muster; 0630 , 200306 12
         Specification 11 : Failed to obey lawful order by not going to restricted personnel muster; 0630, 200306 14
         Specification 12 : Failed to obey lawful order by not going to restricted personnel muster; 1130 , 200306 14
         Specification 13 : Failed to obey lawful order by not going to restricted personnel muster; 0630, 200306 18
         Specification 14: Failed to obey lawful order by not going to restricted personnel muster; 0630, 20030620
         Specification 15: Failed to obey lawful order issued by a Petty Officer-3 to recite the Sailors’ Creed.
         Awarded: Suspended:

S CM :

- 20 0 20806 :      Article , Unauthorized Absence
         Specification 1: UA 20020406-20020409
         Specification 2: UA 20020413-20020417
         Specification 3: UA 20020419- 20020429
         Specification 4: UA 20020502-20020528
         Specification 5: UA 20020611-20020722
         Specification 6: UA 20020725-20020805
         Article , 2 specifications
         Specification 1: B reaking restriction on or about 11 June 2002
         Specification 2: Breaking restriction on or about 25 July 2002
         Sentence:

- 2003 0116 :      Article , Unauthorized Absence ; 6 specifications
         Specification 1: Failure to go to appointed place of duty; (pretrial) restricted muster at 0600, 20030111
         Specification 2: Failure to go to appointed place of duty; (pretrial) restricted muster at 1130, 20030110
         Specification 3: Failure to go to appointed place of duty ; (pretrial) restricted muster at 0600 , 20030110
         Specification 4: UA 20021109-20030107
         Specification 5: UA 20021108-20021109
         Specification 6: UA 20021029-20021104
         Sentence:

Retention Warning Counseling:

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 980805 UNTIL 010906 ”
         “UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS ”

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), re-issued October 2002, effective 22 August 2002 until 25 April 2005, 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 86 , Unauthorized Absence .

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

Applicant’s Issues

1.       The Applicant contends his discharge should be upgraded due to honorable service in his first enlistment.
2.       The Applicant contends his misconduct was due to youth and the immature manner in which he handled personal issues.

Decision

Date: 20 1 1 0317             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. T he Applicant’s record of service included non-judicial punishments for o f the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 86 ( Unauthorized a bsence, 3 specifications) and Article 92 ( Failure to o bey o rder or r egulation , 1 7 specifications ) . It also included summary courts-martial for of the UCMJ: Article 86 ( Unauthorized a bsence, 12 specifications ) and Article 134 (Breaking r estriction, 2 specifications) . 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 consult with a qualified counsel, submit a written statement, and request an administrative board.

: (Decisional) ( ) The Applicant contends his discharge should be upgraded due to honorable service in his first enlistment . His contention also suggest s that his prior record of service warrants consideration. The omission of the honorable service of his first enlistment from his DD 214 is an administrative error. A dministrative errors are not grounds for upgrading a discharge. The NDRB will recommend to the Commander, Navy Personnel Command, to make the appropriate correction to the DD 214. In addition, d espite a service member’s prior record of service, certain serious offenses warrant separation from the Naval service to maintain proper order and discipline. The Applicant’s service record in his current enlistment contained two NJPs and two SCMs for multiple violations of Articles 86, 92, and 134 of the UCMJ , thus substantiating the misconduct for which he was separated. The Applicant was separated with an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge for misconduct during his second enlistment. His Honorable discharge for his first enlistment has no bearing on the second enlistment. His conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflects his willful failure to meet the requirements of his contract and falls far short of that required for an upgrade of his characterization of service. Relief denied.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends his misconduct was due to youth and the immature manner in which he handled personal issues , specifically, becoming a father . While the Applicant may feel his youth or immaturity was the underlying cause of his misconduct, he provided no documentation in support of this claim. The NDRB recognizes that many service members are young when they enlist for service and often encounter personal problems but still manage to serve honorably. While the Board understands some members are not as mature or others, it does not view a member’s claim of youth and immaturity to be a mitigating factor or a sufficient reason for misconduct. The NDRB determined the awarded discharge characterization was warranted. 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 for additional information.

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 | 2010_Navy | ND1000951

Original file (ND1000951.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 | 2005_Navy | ND0501073

Original file (ND0501073.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions). USS ENTERPRISE, on active duty, did on board USS ENTERPRISE, on or about 0700, 27 May 2002, without authority, fail to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty, to wit: pretrial restriction muster.Violation of the UCMJ, Article 89: Specification: In that Mess Management Specialist Seaman C_ L. G_ (Applicant), U.S. Navy. USS...
NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01105

Original file (ND02-01105.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

In the acknowledgement letter to the Applicant, he was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION 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 86- unauthorized absence.
NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-01041

Original file (ND04-01041.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ND04-01041 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20040607. 900710: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (21 specifications): UA from pre-trial restriction muster. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 19930222 with a bad conduct discharge which was the sentence adjudged by a properly convened special court-martial.
USMC | DRB | 2014_Marine | MD1400203

Original file (MD1400203.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 .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 been conducted, former members are...
NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600520

Original file (ND0600520.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Applicant also violated Article 91 of the UCMJ, disrespectful in language to a Third Class Petty Officer in the performance of duty. Dismissed.930527: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Specification: On or about 0715, 930506, without authority, fail to go to restricted muster in the hangar bay. Your Commanding Officers Nonjudicial Punishment on board USS TRIPOLI (LPH 10) of 930402, violation of the UCMJ, Article 92, Spec: On or about 920321, fail to obey a lawful order issued by the...
NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0601057

Original file (ND0601057.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Elements of Discharge: [BCD] Record of Trial Complete: Date Charges Preferred: 19830203 Date Charges Referred to Special Court-Martial: 19830215 Trial Date: 19830225Applicant requested BCD: Length of BCD Suspension:Date Applicant to Confinement: 19830225 Date Applicant from Confinement: 19830415Date Applicant to Voluntary Appellate Leave: 19830419NC&PB Action and Date: Clemency review waived 19920224NMCCA Action and Date: Affirmed findings and sentence on 19830727Date Appellate Review...
NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801126

Original file (ND0801126.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant should be aware completion of these items alone does not guarantee an upgrade from an unfavorable discharge as each discharge is reviewed by the Board on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service conduct mitigates the reason for the characterization of discharge.The Applicant provided a personal statement and as evidence of post-service accomplishments. The Board determined based on the documentation provided the characterization of service received, “Under Other Than...
NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1200827

Original file (ND1200827.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant contends his discharge was based on minor infractions and was not a Pattern of Misconduct. Based on the offenses committed by the Applicant, command administratively processed for separation. ” 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...
NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0701075

Original file (ND0701075.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Board determined that the documentation provided by the Applicant did not mitigate the misconduct which resulted in the Applicant’s discharge and characterization of his service. Appeal denied 19921002: Vacated previously suspended punishment due to continued misconduct.19921002: NJP – Violation of UCMJ Article 86 (unauthorized absence, three specifications): 0630 19920919 UA from restricted muster, 0630 19920922 UA from restricted muster, 0630 19920923 Awarded - FOP ($100/month for two...

Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1000904

Similar Decisions