Upgrade.Vet

NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1101206

Original file (ND1101206.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-PCSN, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20110412
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)        19970530 - 19970806     Active: 19970807 - 20011004 HON
                                    USN 20011005 - 20061025 HON

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20061026     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20081017      Highest Rank/Rate: PC2
Length of Service : Y ear ( s ) M onth ( s ) 21 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 35
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: 3.2 ( 5 )      Behavior: 2.8 ( 5 )        OTA: 3.02

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      (3) (2) (2) (2) (2)

Periods of UA /C ONF :

NJP :

- 20080825 :       Article ( , )
         Article ( , )
         Awarded : Susp ended:

- 20081014 :       Article ( , )
         Awarded : Susp ended:

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

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

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

         “ CONTINUOUS HONORABLE ACTIVE SERVICE FROM 970807 UNTIL 061025 ”
         “ MISCONDUCT (SERIOUS OFFENSE) ”

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 s 92 and 121.

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

Applicant’s Issues

1 .       The Applicant contends his record of service outweighs his misconduct.
2 .       The Applicant contends his discharge is inequitable , because it was based on an isolated incident.
3 .       The Applicant contends that his discharge was too severe for the offense that he committed.

Decision

Date : 20 1 2 0405             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 the pertinent standards of equity and propriety were met . The Applicant’s record of service included for o f the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article ( , , 0730 - 0815, 10 October 2008 ), Article ( , , wrongfully using government credit card to obtain cash and merchandise ), and Article ( Wrongful appropriation, , steal money from property of Bank of America in the amount of $3,037.54 ). Based on the offenses committed by the Applicant, command administratively processed for separation . When notified of administrative separation processing using the procedure, the Applicant exercised his right to consult with a qualified counsel but rights submit a written statement and request an administrative board .

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant states that his performance before and after the misconduct that led to his discharge remained at the level of a Second Class Petty Officer, therefore suggesting his record of service warrants consideration for an upgrade . Despite a service member’s prior record of service, certain serious offenses warrant separation from the Navy to maintain proper order and disc ipline. Violation of Articles 92 and 1 21 of the UCMJ are such offenses. F ailure to obey orders or regulations as well as wrongful appropriation greater than $500 can result 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. Even though the Applicant had multiple violations of the UCMJ, his command did not pursue a punitive discharge but opted instead for the more lenient administrative discharge. The NDRB found the characterization of the Applicant ’ s discharge was equitable and no more severe than the characterization of discharge given others in similar circumstances. Relief denied.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends his discharge is inequitable, because it was based on an isolated incident. 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. Violation of Article 92 or 1 21 are offense s that warrant processing for administrative separation regardless of grade , performance, 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. The Applicant was found guilty of violation of Article 92 and 12 1 . However, his command did not pursue a punitive discharge but opted instead for the more lenient administrative discharge. Relief denied.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends that his discharge was too severe for the offenses that he committed. A review of the records shows that the Applicant appealed his award at NJP for violating UCMJ Article 92 (Failure to obey an order or regulation) and Article 121 (Larceny). After reviewing the proceedings, the Commander, Naval Undersea Warfare Center, Newport, RI, found sufficient evidence that the Applicant violated Article 92 but amended the Article 121 (Larceny) violation to Article 121 (Wro ngful appropriation), as he determined that the Applicant did not intend to “permanently deprive” Bank of America but, by a preponderance of the evidence, did “temporarily deprive” the bank of funds greater than $500. Wrongful appropriation greater than $500 is considered a serious offense according to Appendix 12 of the Manual for Courts-Martial United States. Failure to obey a lawful order or regulation or wrongful appropriation greater than $500 can result 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. Even though the Applicant had multiple violations of the UCMJ, his command did not pursue a punitive discharge but opted instead for the more lenient administrative discharge. However, based on a thorough review of the record, facts , and circumstances unique to this case, the NDRB determined that the characterization of service was i nequitable and inconsistent with that given others under similar circumstances. While the Applicant did violate Articles 92 and 121, the NDRB determined that it did not warrant an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge. Therefore, the characterization of service will change to General (Under Honorable Conditions). Relief granted.

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, 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 | MD0801205

Original file (MD0801205.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: NONE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. Record of service. ” 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...
USMC | DRB | 2012_Marine | MD1201201

Original file (MD1201201.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: DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD...
USMC | DRB | 2014_Marine | MD1400859

Original file (MD1400859.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Relief denied.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, service record entries, and discharge process, the Board found clemency was not warranted. ” 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...
USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0901319

Original file (MD0901319.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE.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. ” 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...
NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1100391

Original file (ND1100391.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant seeks an upgrade to qualify for government employment.2. ” 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...
USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1100022

Original file (MD1100022.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

With no Bad Conduct Discharge remaining due to clemency, the Convening Authority processed the Applicant for an administrative discharge pursuant to paragraph 6210.6 of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual. Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s documentation, summary of service, service record entries, results of trial by special court martial, and the discharge process, the NDRB determined that Therefore, the awarded...
NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1100862

Original file (ND1100862.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

: (Decisional) (Board Issue) (Equity) During the NDRB’s review of the Applicant’s request for an upgrade, the NDRB identified an impropriety in her dischargein that she did not meet the requirement for separation according to MILPERSMAN Article 1910-138, Separation by Reason of Misconduct - Minor Disciplinary Infractions, dated 22 Aug 2002 to 25 April 2005.Pursuant to MILPERSMAN Article 1910-138, “Members may be processed for separation based upon a series of at least three, but not more...
NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0901812

Original file (ND0901812.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

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). 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 BAD CONDUCT...
USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0601213

Original file (MD0601213.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Certain serious offenses, even though isolated, warrant separation from the Naval service in order to maintain proper order and discipline.The Applicant’s service was marred by one retention warning, one nonjudicial punishment for Article 121, and a guilty finding and sentence at a Special Court-Martial for Article 92. After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Service Record Entries, Medical Record Entries, Elements of Discharge and...
USMC | DRB | 2013_Marine | MD1301372

Original file (MD1301372.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

” 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. Additionally, the NDRB does not have the authority to change a narrative reason for separation to one indicating a medical disability or...

Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1101206

Similar Decisions