Upgrade.Vet

NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1100789

Original file (ND1100789.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-CTR1, USNR

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20110203

Characterization of Service Received:

Narrative Reason for Discharge:
Authority for Discharge: MILPERSMAN

Applicant’s Request:      Characterization change to:
         Narrative Reason change to:       SECRETARIAL AUTHORITY

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive:         NONE              Active:

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20000920     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20080307      Highest Rank/Rate: CTR1
Length of Service:
         Inactive:        Y ear( s ) M onth( s ) 03 D a y ( s )
         Active   Y ear( s ) M onth( s ) 07 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 80
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: 4.2 ( 6 )      Behavior: 3.5 ( 6 )        OTA: 3.74

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      GCM AFRM w/ “ M” device JSAM JMUA AFOUA

Periods of UA /C ONF :

NJP :     S CM :    SPCM:    C C :      Retention Warning Counseling :

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 11, effective 29 April 2005 until
1 June 2008, 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.        The Applicant contends his discharge is inequitable , because it was based on an isolated incident of past conduct voluntarily disclosed by the Applicant on a security clearance interview questionnaire .
2.       The Applicant contends that his discharge characterization of Under Other Than Honorable Conditions was inequitable based on his service record .
3.       The Applicant contends his discharge is inequitable , because he failed to receive notice that discharge proceedings were initiated against him, thereby causing him to not exercise his right to an administrative discharge board.

Decision

Date : 20 1 2 020 9             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. 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 did not contain any negative NAVPERS 1070/613 (Page 13) retention counseling warnings, commanding officers’ nonjudicial punishments, or trial by courts-martial. The record did reflect the Applicant admitted to a one - time use of cocaine (Article 112a violation) during a security clearance interview on 24 June 2 007. Based on the findings of the investigation, the Applicant’s command administratively processed for separation. The Applicant a pre-service drug waiver prior to entering the Navy. Based on the Article 112a violation, processing for administrative separation is mandatory. The Applicant’s administrative separation package indicates the Applicant did not exercise or waive his rights to consult with a qualified counsel, submit a written statement, and request an administrative board or a General Court-Martial Convening Authority review . The records indicate the Applicant ’s command attempted to notify the Applicant via the U . S . Postal Service of administrative separation processing using the procedure but the A pplicant failed to respond . The A pplicant was subsequently discharged in absentia.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends his discharge is inequitable , because it was based on an isolated incident of past conduct voluntarily disclosed by the Applicant. The Applicant contends that his discharge characterization of Under Other Than Honorable Conditions was inequitable based on his service record. The NDRB commends the Applicant for completing his first two enlistment periods with an Honorable characterization, but each period of enlistment is an independent obligation and characterization is determined fo r that specific period of time. D espite a Sailor’s prior record of se rvice, certain serious offenses , even though isolated, warrant separation from the service in order to maintain proper order and discipline. Violation of Article 112a is one such offense requ iring mandatory processing, regardless of time in service or grade , which 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. The command did not pursue a punitive discharge but opted instead for the more lenient administrative discharge. The Board determined an upgrade would be inappropriate. Relief denied.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends his discharge is inequitable , because he failed to receive notice that discharge proceedings were initiated against him, thereby causing him to not exercise his right to an administrative discharge board. The Applicant submitted several documents attesting to his search efforts with the U.S. Postal Service and statements from his family that they did not receive a package from the Navy Operational Support Center (NOSC). According to the records, however, the package was delivered to the A pplicant’s known address without a receipt signature. Additionally, the Applicant ’s search efforts indicate that he was fully aware that his command was initiating separation proceedings for his drug abuse, but he did not submit any documentation pertaining to, nor make any mention of, efforts to communicate with his command and his NOSC. Relief denied.

Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s s ummary of s ervice, r ecord entries 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, 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

NAVY | DRB | 2014_Navy | ND1401649

Original file (ND1401649.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant seeks a change to his RE-code.2. The Applicant contends he was wrongly discharged from a drilling status.The Applicant contends he was either present for the annotated missed drills or they were authorized absences. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the...
NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1301889

Original file (ND1301889.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

On 28 March 2012, Commander, Navy Personnel Command (PERS 913) directed NOSC Houston to discharge the Applicant with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) characterization of service for Unsatisfactory Participation in the Ready Reserve with a Reenlistment Code of RE-4 (Not Recommended for Reenlistment) and a Separation Code of JHJ (No Board Entitlement). Relief denied.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entries,...
NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1301024

Original file (ND1301024.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. The NDRB conducted a thorough review of the available records, to include significant, credible evidence submitted by the Applicant. ” 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.
NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1300214

Original file (ND1300214.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

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 character of service and the reason for discharge if such change is warranted.In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include...
NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1301704

Original file (ND1301704.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to:Narrative Reason change to:ADMINISTRATIVE SEPARATION Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive:USNR (DEP)20030228-20030908Active: 20030909-20070908 Period of Service Under Review: Date of Current Enlistment: 20070909Age at Enlistment:Period of Enlistment: YearsExtensionDate of Discharge:20121218Highest Rank/Rate:BU2Length of Service:Year(s)Month(s) 10 Day(s)Education Level:AFQT: 45EvaluationMarks:Performance:3.4(5)Behavior:3.2(5)OTA: 3.40Awards...
NAVY | DRB | 2014_Navy | ND1400667

Original file (ND1400667.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

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. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been...
USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1000070

Original file (MD1000070.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues The Applicant seeks appropriate relief by a change to his characterization of service to Honorable and a narrative reason for separation change to “Defective Enlistment” or ‘Fraudulent Entry into Military Service. Therefore, under equity, the Applicant should have been separated for erroneous enlistment or fraudulent enlistment and that his service was honorable; as such, the...
NAVY | DRB | 2014_Navy | ND1400579

Original file (ND1400579.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. There is no requirement or law that grants recharacterization solely on the issue of obtaining veterans benefits and this issue does not serve to...
NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801427

Original file (ND0801427.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant was subsequently separated as required by Article 1910-148 of the MILPERSMAN with a characterization of service as “Under Other Than Honorable Conditions.” The Applicant waived his right to an administrative separation board.For the edification of the Applicant, an “Under Other Than Honorable” conditions discharge is appropriate when the basis for separation is commission or omission of an act that constitutes a significant departure from the conduct expected from a service...
NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0800199

Original file (ND0800199.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Board determined that this issue was moot in light of its determination noted above that the appropriate characterization of the Applicant’s service was Honorable.In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of Government affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the Applicant. After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Medical and...

Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1100789

Similar Decisions