Upgrade.Vet

NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1001251

Original file (ND1001251.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-FCC(SW), USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20100420

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)        19800729 - 1980 1026     Active: 1980 1027 - 19 86 061 7
                  19860618 - 19920614
                  19920615 - 19951105

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 19951106     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : 5 Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 19990508      Highest Rank/Rate: FCC
Length of Service : Y ear ( s ) M onth ( s ) 3 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 82

Fitness R eports:

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      Pistol (4) JMUC

Periods of UA/ C ONF : IHCA : 19990107 - 19990508 (121 days)                  CONF: NONE

NJP :

S CM :

SPCM:

C C : NFIR

Retention Warning Counseling :

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

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

         Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, should read: “ NAVY PISTOL EXPERT GOOD CONDUCT MEDAL(4) JOINT MERITORIOUS UNIT COM M ENDATION SEA SERVICE DEPLOYMENT RIBBON(2) LETTER OF COMMENDATION ENLISTED SURFACE WARFARE SPECIALIST ”
         “ CONTINUOUS HONORABLE ACTIVE SERVICE FROM 860618 UNTIL 951105 ”
         “ UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS ”
         “ (121) 1999JAN07 TO 1999MAY08 ”

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 18, effective 12 December 1997 until
29 March 2000, 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 107, 120, and 134.

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

Applicant’s Issues

The Applicant did not state any issues.

Decision

Date: 20 1 1 06 16 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 discharg e if such change is warranted. In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of g overnment a l affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the Applicant. The Applicant did not identify any decisional issues for the Board ’s consideration . However, 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 for the current enlistment (4 th period of e nlistment) did not contain any NAVPERS 1070/613 (Page 13) retention warnings, commanding officer’s nonjudicial punishment (NJP), or trial by courts-martial. The record did reflect that during 1997, the Applicant was referred to Family Advocacy and investigated by authorities related to a child sexual abuse (fondling and digital penetration) allegation made by the oldest of his two teenaged step-daughter s (age 15). She alleged that the Applicant had molested her for approximately two years (1993-1995) , which stopped abruptly after the Applicant’s b rother was charged an d convicted of child sexual abuse with his own children. After considering all the available evidence, to include inconsistent testimony and pre-existing abnormal behavior of the teenage d step-daughter (illegal drug use, family member manipulation, destruction of property, etc) , the Case Review Committee ruled the allegation to be unsubstantiated. Approximately two years later in Jan 1999, the Applicant’s younger step-daughter (then age 14) revealed to several people that the Applicant had also sexually abused her on several occasions. The local police department investigated the case and subsequently arrested the Applicant , 7 Jan 1999, on charges of child sexual abuse. On 17 Feb 1999 , while the police investigation and district attorney preparation for prosecution processes were underway, the Applicant’s Command Master Chief (CMC) made a command - sponsored visit to the local jail where he was being detained prior to trial. During the visit, the Applicant told the CMC that he had confessed to 17 specific charges filed against him. The Case Review Committee met on 18 Feb 1999 and determined the case to be substantiated and that the Applicant was considered a Family Advocacy Program (FAP) rehabilitation t reatment f ailure. Per the Naval Military Personnel Manual (MILPERSMAN), processing for FAP failure is mandatory. Based on the offense(s) committed by the Applicant and with knowledge of pending civil court prosecution , command administratively processed for separation on the basis of Misconduct (Commission of a Serious Offense - Sexual Perversion) and Family Advocacy Program Rehabilitation Failure . When notified of administrative separation processing using the procedure on 9 Mar 2009 , the Applicant waived rights to consult with a qualified counsel, submit a written statement, and request an administrative separation board . The Applicant was separated from the Navy on 8 May 1999 (in absentia, while in the hands of civil authorities) with an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge due to Misconduct (Commission of a Serious Offense - Sexual Perversion).

After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s s ummary of s ervice, r ecord e ntries and the administrative separation 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 | 2001_Navy | ND01-00468

Original file (ND01-00468.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ND01-00468 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010227, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable and the reason for the discharge be changed to completed service. Willing to waive the administrative board if given an honorable discharge with the understanding that if request is denied, admin separation processing will continue and will have the right to elect an admin board or hearing.000316: Commanding officer...
NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1101304

Original file (ND1101304.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The NDRB voted to upgrade the Applicant’s discharge to Honorable and to change the narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entries, and discharge process, facts, and circumstances unique to this case,and taking into consideration his testimony,the Board found the discharge was inequitable. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08320-01

Original file (08320-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

Petitioner initially enlisted in the Navy for four years He reenlisted for three years on 13 April 1994 on 3 August 1988. and then for six years on 13 February 1997. that he served in an excellent manner during his entire period of service. When an individual has been improperly discharged and no other basis for discharge is available, the record should be corrected to show that the individual was not discharged but remained in the military until either the expiration of the enlistment or...
NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801097

Original file (ND0801097.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

[Extracted from CO, TRIDENT Refit Facility letter 20050624].NJP:SCM:SPCM:CC:Retention Warning Counseling:NDRB Documentary Review Conducted (date): 20070510 NDRB Documentary Review Docket Number: ND06-00888 NDRB Documentary Review Findings: NO CHANGE WARRANTED 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: Substance Abuse: Criminal...
NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00095

Original file (ND00-00095.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT ex-HM1, USNR Docket No. 870730: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under Other Than Honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the Commission of a serious offenses of sexual and physical abuse and assault upon your daughters, J_ L_, and J_ L_ as evidenced by the interviews contained in NIS investigation 12MA ROI/19 JUN 87/CCN:...
NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1100343

Original file (ND1100343.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Based on the offense committed by the Applicant, his command administratively processed him for separation.After initial notification of administrative separation processing (for commission of a serious offense and family advocacy rehabilitation failure) using the procedure on 15 Jun 2009, the Applicant elected to exercise his rights to consult with a qualified counsel and request an administrative separation board. After review of all the available evidence, the ASB found the following:...
NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1300039

Original file (ND1300039.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant contends she was denied her rights under Part V of the Manual for Courts-Martial.6.The Applicant contends she received three Nonjudicial Punishments (NJPs) for the same alleged offenses.7.The Applicant contends she received punishment twice for the same alleged offenses.8. Representation: 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...
NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600343

Original file (ND0600343.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY ex-CS1, USNDocket No. Typed version does not reflect suspended separation for 6 months.040910: Letter of Applicant deficiencies submitted from Applicant counsel.040916: Commanding Officer, USS RUSHMORE (LSD 47), recommended discharge with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct - commission of a serious offense and Family Advocacy Program Failure. ...
NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1001057

Original file (ND1001057.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 the administrative separation 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,...
USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0500924

Original file (MD0500924.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

MD05-00924 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20050426. In paragraph 2a of enclosure (2), Captain M_ states that according to SECNAVINST l752.3A, “Commanding Officers who convene administrative discharge proceedings in child sexual abuse cases shall, in all cases, assign a judge advocate as the recorder unless there is compelling reason not to do so.” In Government Exhibit #1 to enclosure (1), I convened an administrative discharge board on 8 January...

Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1001251

Similar Decisions