Upgrade.Vet

NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1100698

Original file (ND1100698.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-MA2, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20110119

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)        19930930 - 19940626     Active: 19940627 - 19990211 HON
                                    USMC 19990212 - 20030105 HON

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20030106     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20080822      Highest Rank/Rate: MA2
Length of Service: Y ear s M onth s 15 D a ys
Education Level:        AFQT: 51
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: 4.0 ( 6 )      Behavior: 3.67 ( 6 )       OTA: 3.67

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      NMCAM NUC MUC GCM(4) NDSM GWOTSM GWOTEM AFEM SSDR(2) HSM

Period of C ONF : 20080313 [Applicant was in the hands of civilian authorities pending trial until his EAS]

NJP : NONE S CM : NONE SPCM: NONE

C C : 1

- 20080315 :       Offense: Incarcerated and charged with Child Sexual Abuse, 15 specifications
         Sentence : Pending

Retention Warning Counseling : 1

- 20051115 :       For failure to meet body composition standards

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

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

         Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, should read: “ NAVY AND MARINE CORPS COMMENDATION MEDAL, NAVY AND MARINE CORPS ACHIEVEMENT MEDAL (2), NAVY UNIT COMMENDATION, MERITORIOUS UN I T COMMENDATION, GOOD CONDUCT MEDAL (4), NATIONAL DEFENSE SERVICE MEDAL, GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM SERVICE MEDAL, GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM EXPEDITIONARY MEDAL, ARMED FORCES EXPEDITIONARY MEDAL, SEA SERVICE DEPLOYMENT RIBBON (2), HUMANITARIAN SERVICE MEDAL ”

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 23, effective 12 June 2008 until 9 November 2009, 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 120 (Rape, sexual assault, and other sexual misconduct).

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

Applicant’s Issues

1.        The Applicant contends his discharge is inequitable as it was based on an isolated incident in 14 years of service with no other adverse actions.
2.       The Applicant believes his record of service outweighs his misconduct.

Decision

Date : 20 1 2 0405             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’s record of service included one NAVPERS 1070/613 (Page 13) warning and 15 c ivilian c harges for Child Sexual Abuse. Based on the civilian charges facing the Applicant, his command a dministratively processed him for separation due to commission of a serious offense . W hen 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, and request an administrative board . The Applicant was discharged in absentia while in the hands of civilian authorities.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends his discharge is inequitable as it was based on an isolated incident in 14 years of service with no other adverse actions. Despite a servicemember’s prior record of service, certain serious offenses, even though isolated, warrant separation from the Navy to maintain proper order and discipline. Being apprehended, incarcerated, and charged with 15 specifications of child sexual abuse by civilian authorities is one such offense that requir es processing for administrative separation regardless of grade , performance, awards, or time in service. This usually results in an unfavorable characterization of discharge or, at a maximum, a punitive discharge and possible confinement if adjudicated and awarded as part of a sentence by a special or general court-martial. His command did not pursue a punitive discharge but opted instead for the more lenient administrative discharge. Relief denied.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant states that h e received G ood C onduct M edals as well as several other ribbons and medals. He also stated that he was awarded his golden stripes at his 12-year mark . Despite a servicemember’s prior record of service, certain serious offenses, even though isolated, warrant separation from the Navy to maintain proper order and discipline. The Applicant’s apprehension, incarceration, and charge s of 15 counts of child sexual abuse by civilian authorities is one such offense that requires processing for administrative separation regardless of grade , performance, awards, or time in service. This usually results in an unfavorable characterization of discharge or, at a maximum, a punitive discharge and possible confinement if adjudicated and awarded as part of a sentence by a special or general court-martial. His command did not pursue a punitive discharge but opted instead for the more lenient administrative discharge. 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

USMC | DRB | 2007_Marine | MD0700298

Original file (MD0700298.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The record clearly documents that this misconduct was the reason the Applicant was discharged. After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Medical and Service Record Entries, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found that Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214 The NDRB did note administrative error(s) on the original DD Form 214: “930125 ” “ UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE...
NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801032

Original file (ND0801032.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Types of Documents Submitted/reviewedRelated to Military Service: DD 214: Service and/or Medical Record: Other Records: Related to Post-Service Period: Employment: Finances: Education/Training: Health/Medical Records: Substance Abuse: Criminal Records: Family/Personal Status: Community Service: References: Additional Statements From Applicant: From Representation: From Member of Congress: Other Documentation (Describe): DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE...
NAVY | DRB | 2014_Navy | ND1401169

Original file (ND1401169.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant contends his discharge is inequitable because his civilian conviction should not have affected his military record of service. 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 discharge, is authorized to change the...
NAVY | DRB | 2014_Navy | ND1400910

Original file (ND1400910.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to:Narrative Reason change to: OR Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive:USNR (DEP)19951207 - 19960818Active:19960819 - 1999021519990216 - 2001071920010720 - 20040805 Period of Service Under Review: Date of Current Enlistment: 20040806Age at Enlistment: Period of Enlistment: YearsExtensionDate of Discharge:20050706Highest Rank/Rate: MA2Length of Service: Year(s) Month(s) 0Day(s)Education Level:AFQT:...
NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600909

Original file (ND0600909.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. PART I - ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION Decisional Issues Equity: “one mistake” did not warrant discharge Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant’s DD Form 214 (Member 4) PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive:...
NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0902596

Original file (ND0902596.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant submitted no evidence to support his contention; therefore the NDRB must rely upon the presumption of regularity in the conduct of government affairs.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...
NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0902560

Original file (ND0902560.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. The NDRB determined the Applicant did not provide sufficient post-service documentary evidence to form a basis of relief.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...
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...
USMC | DRB | 2012_Marine | MD1201068

Original file (MD1201068.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Clemency 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...
NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00962

Original file (ND04-00962.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. In the acknowledgement letter, the Applicant was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214 Letter from Applicant Copy of Domestic...

Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1100698

Similar Decisions