Upgrade.Vet

NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1001855

Original file (ND1001855.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-EMFN, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20100722

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)        19991026 - 19991128     Active:

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 19991129     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20020703      Highest Rank/Rate: EM3
Length of Service : Y ear s M onth s 5 D a ys
Education Level:        AFQT: 61
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: 2.7 ( 3 )      Behavior: 1.7 ( 3 )        OTA: 2.66

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):

Periods of C ONF :

NJP:

- 20010505 :       Article ( General A rticle, D runk and disorderly)
         Awarded: Suspended: (suspend 6 months)

- 20011107 :      Article ( Absence without leave, UA 20010906 – 2001091 9) , 13 days
         Article (Missing movement)
         Article ( Failure to obey order or regulation, consuming alcohol while in a duty status)
         Awarded: (to E-3) FOP Suspended: (suspend 6 months)

- 20020612 :      Article ( Absence without leave ) , 5 specifications
         Article ( Wrongful use of controlled substance, m ethamphetamine , NAVDRUGLAB msg 10 Jun 9 2 )
         Awarded : RIR(to E-3) FOP Susp ended:

SCM:

SPCM:

C C :

Retention Warning Counseling :

         200 1 0501 For violation of UCMJ Article 134 (Drunk and disorderly), resulting in CO’s NJP of 5 May 2001.

         20011107 For violation of UCMJ Article 86 (UA-13 days and failure to go to appointed place of duty),
                  Article 87 (Missing ship’s movement), and Article 92 (Dereliction of duty) resulting in CO’s NJP of
                  7 Nov 2001.

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

The NDRB did note administrative errors on the original DD Form 214:

         “ UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS ”
         “ 2001S EP 06 - 2001S EP 19 (13 days) ”

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. The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 33, effective 16 July 2001 until
21 August 2002, Article 1910-146, SEPARATION BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT - DRUG ABUSE.

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 . Applicant contends his post-service achievements warrant consideration for an upgrade.

Decision

Date: 20 1 1 04 29 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 al affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the Applicant. T he Applicant identified one decisional issue for the Board’s consideration. The Board co nducted 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 for o f the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article (Absence without leave, 6 specifications , 6-19 Sep 2001, and five other incidents NFIR ) , Article (Missing ship’s movement) , Article (Failure to obey order or regulation, consuming alcohol while in a duty status) , Article (Wrongful use of controlled substance, methamphetamine , 2410 ng/ml, NAVDRUGLAB msg 101546Z Jun 02 ), and Article (General A rticle, D runk and disorderly conduct ). Based on the Article 112a violation, processing for administ rative separation is mandatory per the U.S. Navy Military Personnel Manual (MILPERSMAN) . When notified of administrative separation processing using the procedure on 8 Jul 2002 , the Applicant rights to consult with a qualified coun sel, submit a written statement , and request an administrative separation board. The Applicant was separated from the Navy on 3 Jul 2002 with an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge due to Misconduct (Drug Abuse).

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant believes his post-service achievements warrant consideration for an upgrade . The NDRB considers post-service conduct in order to determine if the misconduct committed during active duty was indicative of the Applicant ’ s character or an aberration. However, there is no law or regulation that provides an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. In his statement to the Board, the Applicant states that since his discharge from the Navy he has completed rehabilitation treatment and excelled in graphic design, computer electronics, and customer service. Besides the Applicant ’ s statement on the DD Form 293, he failed to provide any additional documentation and evidence on his behalf to support a post-service conduct review . On page 4, Item 8, in the instructions for completion of DD Form 293, the Applicant is notified to submit evidence “ which substantiate or relate directly to your issues in Item 6 ” (Issues: Why an upgrade or change is requested and justification for the request). Additionally, upon receipt of the Applicant's DD Form 293, the NDRB mails an acceptance letter that includes Information Concerning Review Procedures , which discusses the submission of additional documents in paragraph 3, Submission of Evidence , and in the last section on page 4, Information Pertaining to a Review Based Upon Post-Service Conduct . The Applicant ’ s statements alone, without sufficient documentary evidence, are not enough to form a basis of relief . 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 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, specifically the paragraphs titled Additional Reviews, Automatic Upgrades, 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 | MD0801244

Original file (MD0801244.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 Board determined 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...
USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1001648

Original file (MD1001648.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant contends his discharge is inequitable, because he lost three ranks and received an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge for being UA; in addition, he provided a letter from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) saying he had Honorable service.The VA’s decisional letter is not binding on the NDRB. 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...
NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0902506

Original file (ND0902506.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

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. 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...
USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801245

Original file (MD0801245.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.Employment opportunities. ” 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. Additionally, the Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities.
USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801241

Original file (MD0801241.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. The Board determined 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 Pertinent Regulation/Law A. ” Additional Reviews : Subsequent to a document review, former members are eligible for a personal appearance...
NAVY | DRB | 2014_Navy | ND1400194

Original file (ND1400194.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to:Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive:USNR (DEP)20071008 - 20071217Active:20000224 - 2003022120030124 - 2004030120050722 - 20060423 Period of Service Under Review: Date of Current Enlistment: 20071218Age at Enlistment: Period of Enlistment: YearsExtensionDate of Discharge:20090119Highest Rank/Rate: CE3Length of Service: Year(s) Month(s) 02 Day(s)Education Level:AFQT:...
NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900703

Original file (ND0900703.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Should the Applicant obtain additional evidence or post service documentation he may wish to apply for a personal appearance. 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 : If you believe that the decision in your case is unclear, not responsive to the issues you raised, or does not...
USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801152

Original file (MD0801152.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

There was no evidence in the record, nor was any submitted by the Applicant, documenting he was not responsible for his actions or that the misconduct should be excused based on youth and immaturity. Again, the Board determined 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 Pertinent Regulation/Law A. ” Additional Reviews :...
NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1301816

Original file (ND1301816.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...
USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1000629

Original file (MD1000629.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. The Good Conduct Medal statement in Block 18 of his DD-214 is a reference to the restart of the time counter for good conduct consideration and is not the awarding of the medal.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record...

Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1001855

Similar Decisions