Upgrade.Vet

NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1001868

Original file (ND1001868.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-AO3, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20100713

Characterization of Service Received:

Narrative Reason for Discharge:
Authority for Discharge: MILPERSMAN

Applicant’s Request:      Characterization change to:       NONE REQUESTED
         Narrative Reason change to:       CORRECTION TO HHJ CODE / SEPARATION PAY

Summary of Service
Prior Service:
Inactive:         US N R (DEP)        20010830 - 20010924     Active: 20010925 - 20050921 HON

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20050922     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20090415      Highest Rank/Rate: AO3
Length of Service : Y ear s M onth s 25 D a ys
Education Level:        AFQT: 32
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: 3.8 ( 4 )      Behavior: 3.5 ( 4 )        OTA: 3.43

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      Rifle EX Pistol EX NUC MUC NAVY ‘E’ GCM (2) NDSM AFEM SSDR (3) GWOTEM GWOTSM
Periods of UA /C ONF :

NJP : NONE        S CM : NONE       SPCM:    C C :      Retention Warning Counseling : NONE

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

The NDRB note d an administrative error on the original DD Form 214:

         “ CONTINUOUS HONORABLE ACTIVE SERVICE FROM 20010925 TO 20050921 ”

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 23, effective 19 May 2008 until 9 November 2009, Article 1910-156, SEPARATION BY REASON OF UNSATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE.

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 seeks a separation code and narrative reason change to improve his employment opportunities.
2 .        Applicant contends that he should have been given separation pay.
3.       Applicant contends his discharge i s inequitable , because it was based on an isolated incident in eight years of service.

Decision

Date: 20 1 1 1109             Location: Washington D.C .        R epresentation : NONE

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. The Applicant identified one decisional issue for the Board’s consideration. The Board complete d a thorough review of the circumstances that led to his discharge and the discharge process to ensure his discharge met the pertinent standards of equity and propriety. The Applicant’s record revealed that during 2007 he completed an SF-86 personnel background questionnaire for a periodic security background check that was required to renew his security clearance. The renewal request was initially denied due to outstanding financial debts listed as delinquent and/or in collections. In May 2007, the Applicant was referred to Fleet and Family Services and later to a commercial credit counseling service (CCCS) to assist him in debt consolidation and liquidation. CCCS assisted the Applicant in consolidating his debt s and initiating agreements with the finance and collection agencies to pay down his debt via pre-arranged monthly installments. However, a few months later , he stopped participating in the debt installment plan. In October 2007, his security clearance renewal request was again denied due to evidence of “a pattern of financial irresponsibility…poor judgment and unreliability . ” The Applicant’s command requested an extension of the Applicant’s security clearance; however, in August 2008 the Department of the Navy Central Adjudication Facility denied the request and further stated that no additional review would be considered for a period of 12 months. The Applicant’s command notified the Bureau of Naval Personnel (BUPERS) about the Applicant’s denied security clearance renewal and requested guidance concerning rate conversion of the Applicant to a job specialty that did not require a clearance. After considering the facts and circumstances and the manpower need s of the Navy, BUPERS responded via naval message on 12 Mar 2009 and directed that the Applicant be administratively separated from the Navy . When notified of administrative separation processing using the procedure on 17 Mar 2009 , the Applicant waived rights to consult with a qualified counsel, submit a written statement, and request an administrative separation board or a General Court - Martial Convening Authority review . The Applicant was separated from the Navy on 15 Apr 2009 with an Honorable discharge due to Unsatisfactory Performance.

: (Nondecisional) The Applicant seeks a separation code and narrative reason change to improve his employment opportunities. The NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment or educational opportunities as r egulations limit the NDRB’s review to a determination of the propriety and equity of the discharge.

: (Nondecisional) The Applicant contends that he should have been given separation pay. The NDRB has no jurisdiction over separation pay as regulations limit the NDRB’s review to a determination of the propriety and equity of the discharge. Only the B oard for Correction of Naval Records can make determinations related to separation pay.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends his discharge i s inequitable , because it was based on an isolated incident in eight years of service. The record reveals that once the Applicant’s security clearance renewal was denied (with no further review allowed for 12 months), his command engaged BUPERS to find a job specialty in which the Applicant could cross-rate to . BUPERS was not able to cross-rate the Applicant due to manpower requirements and directed that he be discharged. In his notification of A dministrative S eparation memorandum to BUPERS, the C ommanding

O fficer stated the Applicant “ is a capable Aviation Ordnanceman and a positive asset to my ordnance work center. He has displayed positive enthusiasm with a strong drive to complete tasks in a timely and efficient manner. However, due to indebtedness and his failure to maintain a repayment schedule set up via the chain of command, his security clearance was denied. Additionally, he was denied rate conversion and per reference (b) the administrative separation process was directed. Therefore, I discharged him from the Naval Service with characterization of service as Honorable . ” After detailed examination and deliberation, including a review of the documentation provided by the Applicant, the NDRB found that the Applicant’s administrative separation (as directed by BUPERS) was proper and equitable and in accordance with the applicable orders and directives in effect at the time of his separation. 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 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 | 2009_Navy | ND0901719

Original file (ND0901719.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Based on the Applicant’s poor performance, substantial debt, and inability to obtain a security clearance, the NDRB determined he met the requirements for separation by reason of unsatisfactory performance and the awarded characterization of service was warranted.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...
NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700027

Original file (ND0700027.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-SN, USNND07-00027Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request: Application Received: 20061012Characterization of Service: Reason for Discharge: - due toDischarge Authority: MILPERSMAN1910-134Duty Assignment/Command at Discharge: USS ENTERPRISE (CVN 65) HP: NORFOLK, VAApplicant’s Request: Characterization change to: Narrative Reason change to: EARLY SEPARATION FOR EDUCATION Review Requested: Representation:Issues (as summarized by NDRB): 1. Elements of Discharge: [INVOLUNTARY] Date...
NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700343

Original file (ND0700343.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant was not discharged until 19930616, so the Board reviewed the record to determine whether he had been improperly held beyond EAS for administrative separation. Recommendation on Separation: BY 2-1 VOTE,Commanding Officer Recommendation (date): (19930202)Chief of Naval Personnel Recommendation (date) UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL) (19930312)Separation Authority (date): ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE NAVY (M&RA) (19930319)Reason for discharge directed: - Characterization...
NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0901014

Original file (ND0901014.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Based on a review of the evidence of record and statement submitted by the Applicant, the NDRB determined that there was sufficient evidence to support a discharge based on fraudulent enlistment. The Applicant also contends that an upgrade is justified based on the fact that he honorably served his country for 40months, excelled at his rating and received awards.Taking into consideration the Applicant’s overall record and hisconduct,which reflected his willful failure to meet the...
NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1001585

Original file (ND1001585.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

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: Rehabilitation/Treatment: Criminal Records: Personal Documentation: Community Service: References: Department of VA letter: Other Documentation: Additional Statements:From Applicant: From/To Representation:From/ToCongress member: Pertinent Regulation/Law A. The NDRB has no authority to...
NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0901807

Original file (ND0901807.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant contends she had disclosed her pre-service marijuana use to the military entrance medical doctors upon her entrance in the Navy, that the separation authority did not attempt to develop tangible evidence to show her enlistment was fraudulent or could be characterized as such, and that her command acted unfairly and misused their command authority and discretion when deciding to pursue her separation from the Navy.In the Applicant’s argument regarding Issue 2, she stated...
NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700497

Original file (ND0700497.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Members may be separated by reason of misconduct – pattern of misconduct when during the current enlistment they have a set pattern of failure to pay just debts. 20060412: COMNAVPERSCOM directed Applicant’s Commanding Officer to determine whether to suspend Applicant’s access to classified material pending resolution of clearance issues. Discharge Process Date Notified: 20060427Reason for Discharge:-Least Favorable Characterization: Date Applicant Responded to Notification:20060427Rights...
USMC | DRB | 2014_Marine | MD1401263

Original file (MD1401263.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

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: 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. Paragraph 1105,...
NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700241

Original file (ND0700241.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

PERSONAL CONDUCT; FINANCIAL CONSIDERATION : 20010301: Your Credit Bureau Report disclosed the following: * ALLTEL charged off $428.00 in July 1997. Date Applicant Responded to Notification:20021108 Rights Elected at Notification: Consult with Counsel Obtain Copies of Documents Submit Statement(s) (date) Administrative Board GCMCA review Commanding Officer Recommendation (date): N/A (LOCAL SEPARATION) Separation Authority (date): COMMANDING OFFICER, NAVAL HOSPTIAL, GREAT LAKES, ILLINOIS...
NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501167

Original file (ND0501167.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable or general (under honorable conditions). Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant’s DD Form 214 (Service 2) (2 copies) Form from Department of Veterans Affairs Letter from Applicant, dated October 16, 2005 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of...

Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1001868

Similar Decisions