Upgrade.Vet

NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1101096

Original file (ND1101096.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-SHSA, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20110401

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)        19980623 - 19980629     Active:

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 19980630     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20020313      Highest Rank/Rate: SH3
Length of Service: Y ear( s ) M onth( s ) 14 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 32
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: 3.0 ( 1 )      Behavior: 3.0 ( 1 )        OTA: 3.33

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):      CGUCR

Periods of UA : 20010611 - 20020217 ( 251 days )

Periods of time lost (per DD 214): 20010319 - 20010408 ( 20 days )

NJP :     SPCM:    CC:

S CM :

- 20010205 :      Article ( Absence without leave - UA from 20010122-20010123, 1 day)
         Article ( Assault - u nlawful assault on or about 20010123)
         Article ( General A rticle - disorderly conduct on or about 20010123)
         Sentence : (20010205-20010302, 25 days)

Retention Warning Counseling :

- 1998 0 7 0 1 : For fraudulent induction as evidenced by your failure to disclose required basic enlistment eligibility
information.

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

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

         Block 24, “ UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITONS ”
         Block 29, “ 01JAN22, 01FEB05 TO 01MAR02, 01MAR19 TO 01APR08, 01JUN11 TO 02FEB17 ”

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 29, effective 11 July 2000 until 21 August 2002, Article 1910-106, SEPARATION IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT-MARTIAL.

B. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part IV, Para 403m(7)(b), Presumption Concerning Court-Martial Specifications .

C . 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 he should have received a medical discharge for his head injury.
2.       The Applicant contends his mental condition caused h im to go UA .

Decision

Date: 20 1 2 0524             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 discharge 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 included for of the UCMJ: Article 86 ( Absence without leave - UA from 20010122-20010123, 1 day ) , Article 128 ( Assault - unlawful assault on or about 20010123 ), and Article 134 ( General A rticle - disorderly conduct on or about 20010123 ) . On 01 March 2002, the Applicant submitted his request for separation in lieu of trial by court-martial (SILT) after returning from a 251-day period of unauthorized absence . Per regulations, to attain approval for a SILT request, servicemembers must have been afforded the opportunity to consult with a qualified counsel and submit a written statement. They must also fully understand the elements of the offenses for which they were charged, and they must admit their guilt. They further certify a complete understanding of the negative consequences of their actions and that characterization of service could be Under Other Than Honorable Conditions, which might deprive them of virtually all veterans benefits based upon their current enlistment.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends his mental condition caused him to go UA . The Applicant also contends he should have received a medical discharge for his head injury. The government enjoys a presumption of regularity in the conduct of its affairs. The Applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support his issue. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the Applicant produced any evidence, to support the contention that he was diagnosed with a mental condition as a result of a head injury sustained on 10 August 2000 . In fact, the Applicant’s medical record reflects he was seen by a Navy doctor on 11 August 2000 and a CAT scan was conduct ed with results showing no serious injury to the brain or bleeding within the skull. The Applicant underwent a p sychological evaluation on 28 October 2000 that found him fit for full duty. There is no indication in his record or in the documentation submitted by the Applicant that the Applicant was recommended for or processed for a medical board by proper authority . The Applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity in this case. Further, the evidence of record does not indicate that proper authority erred by not initiating a medical board for the Applicant. Therefore, the NDRB found the Applicant’s issue to be without merit . Additionally, D epartment of Defense disability regulations do not preclude a disciplinary separation. Appropriate regulations stipulate that separations for misconduct take precedence over potential separations for other reasons. 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

NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1000504

Original file (ND1000504.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 | 2009_Navy | ND0901442

Original file (ND0901442.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Board also determined an upgrade to Honorable is not warranted considering the seriousness and frequency of the UCMJ violations committed by the Applicant.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...
NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1102150

Original file (ND1102150.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to:Narrative Reason change to:HDG to MDB Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive:USNR (DEP)20010108 - 20010122Active:20010123 - 2003033020030331 - 20070201 Period of Service Under Review: Date of Current Enlistment: 20070202Age at Enlistment:Period of Enlistment: YearsExtensionDate of Discharge:20110119Highest Rank/Rate:MM1Length of Service:Year(s)Month(s) 18 Day(s)Education Level:AFQT: 79EvaluationMarks:Performance:4.0(4)Behavior:3.8(4)OTA:...
NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700250

Original file (ND0700250.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to:Narrative Reason change to: Applicant’s Issues:1. ” 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. If the action includes either a punitive or administrative discharge for misconduct, the medical board report is filed in the member’s terminated health record.
USMC | DRB | 2013_Marine | MD1300847

Original file (MD1300847.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant was properly processed for administrative separation for a Pattern of Misconduct and not for medical reasons. ” 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. Additionally, the NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities.
NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0701033

Original file (ND0701033.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

However, after a complete review of the entire record, including the evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board determined that the discharge was appropriate in light of the nature and seriousness of the Applicant’s misconduct, and that the evidence of post-service conduct was not sufficient to convince the Board that an upgrade was appropriate at this time.In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of Government affairs unless there is substantial credible...
NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1100958

Original file (ND1100958.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: DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD...
USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801567

Original file (MD0801567.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Board also reviewed the Applicant’s medical records which document his personality disorder. The Board determined based on the limited documentation provided an upgrade would be inappropriate and the characterization of service received, “General (Under Honorable Conditions)”, was an appropriate characterization considering the time served and the UCMJ violation involved.After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Record, Discharge...
NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1200273

Original file (ND1200273.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

of controlled substances, Marijuana, 311 ng/ml, NAVDRUGLAB msg 221659Z MAY 01)Awarded: RIR FOP RESTR EPDSuspended: SCM:NONE SPCM:CC:Retention Warning Counseling:NONE 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...
USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801960

Original file (MD0801960.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall COURT-MARTIAL.Discussion :().The Applicant contends he deserves better than a “Bad Conduct” discharge after serving many years in the Marine Corps and taking part in Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003. ” 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. If a former member has been discharged for...

Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1101096

Similar Decisions