Upgrade.Vet

NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1101342

Original file (ND1101342.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-BMSA, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20110503

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)        20080305 - 20080907     Active:

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20080908     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20101209      Highest Rank/Rate: BMSN
Length of Service: Y ear s M onth s 02 D a ys
Education Level:        AFQT: 35
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: 3.0 ( 3 )      Behavior: 2.0 ( 3 )        OTA: 2.89

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      NDSM GWOTSM

Periods of UA /C ONF :

SCM: NONE        S PCM: NONE       CC: NONE         Retention Warning Counseling : NONE

NJP : 1
- 20101110 :      Article 107 (False official statement)
         Article 128 (Assault)
         Awarded: RIR FOP RESTR EPD Suspended:

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 10 November 2009 until 17 August 2011, 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 107 and 128.

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

Applicant’s Issues

1.        The Applicant seeks an upgrade for educational and employment opportunities .
2 .       The Applicant seeks an upgrade for v eterans b enefits.
3.       The Applicant contends his assault charge he was accused of was committed in the act of self defense.

Decision

Date: 20 1 2 07 10             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 Applicant’s record of service included one nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 107 (False official statement) and Article 128 (Assault). B ased on the offenses committed by the Applicant, his command administratively processed him for separation. The NDRB did not have the Applicant’s administrative separation package to determine whether or not the Applicant waived his rights to c onsult with a qualified counsel and submit a written statement . The Applicant was not entitled to an administrative board .

: (Nondecisional) The Applicant seeks an upgrade for educational and employment 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.

: (Nondecisional) The Applicant seeks an upgrade for v eterans b enefits. There is no requirement, or law, that grants re-characterization solely on the issue of facilitating access to VA benefits. Additionally, the NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing educational opportunities or employment opportunities. Regulations limit the NDRB’s review solely to a determination of the propriety and the equity of a discharge. As such, this issue does not serve to provide a foundation upon which the NDRB can grant relief.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends the assault charge he was accused of was committed in the act of self defense. 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 his discharge based on his misconduct is inequitable . The A pplicant provided a cop y of an investigation conducted by his command and indicated that the head-lock-assault victim (SN A_) admitted to conducting a sexual assault on the Applicant . In the report, however, SN A_’s description of the incident did not lend favor to the Applicant’s contention. SN A_ does not admit to a sexual assault, and the subsequent assault by the Applicant on SN A_ appears to be well after the incident that the Applicant contends caused his actions to put SN A_ in a headlock. In any event, the Applicant’s commanding officer found him guilty at NJP of violating UCMJ Articles 107 and 128, both of which are considered to be serious offenses per the Manual for Courts-Martial and warrant separation processing. Despite a servicemember’s prior record of service, certain serious offenses, even though isolated, warrant separation from the to maintain proper order and discipline. Violation of Article s 107 and 128 are such offenses 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. However, his command did not pursue a punitive discharge but opted instead for a lenient administrative discharge. The NDRB found the characterization of the Applicant’s discharge was equitable and consistent with the characterization of discharge given others in similar circumstances. 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), 701 South Courthouse Road, Suite 1001, Arlington, VA 22204-2490 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 | 2006_Navy | ND0600951

Original file (ND0600951.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Equity – Post service Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant’s DD Form 214 (Member 4)One page from the Applicant’s Service RecordApplicant’s Statement, (no signature and no date) (2 pgs) PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of...
NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0800444

Original file (ND0800444.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Awarded - Susp - Retention Warnings:NFIR Types of Documents SubmittedRelated 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...
NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0901777

Original file (ND0901777.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to:Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive:USNR (DEP)20030829 - 20040627Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Current Enlistment: 20040628Age at Enlistment:Period of Enlistment: YearsExtensionDate of Discharge:20060323Highest Rank/Rate:SNLength of Service: Year(s)Month(s)26 Day(s)Education Level:AFQT: 53EvaluationMarks:Performance:3.0(1)Behavior:1.0(1)OTA: 2.67Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):Periods of...
NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0800740

Original file (ND0800740.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Board determined relief is not warranted.After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Record Entries, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found Pertinent Regulation/Law A. ” 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. Additionally, the...
NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801757

Original file (ND0801757.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Board determined the awarded discharge characterization was appropriate and an upgrade would be inappropriate.After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Record Entries, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found ADDENDUM: Information for the Applicant Complaint Procedures : If you believe that the decision in your case is unclear, not responsive to the issues you raised, or does not otherwise comport...
NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801041

Original file (ND0801041.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 | 2011_Navy | ND1100619

Original file (ND1100619.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant contends the Navy never gave him an opportunity to go to drug and alcohol rehabilitation treatment.2. Relief 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...
NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700541

Original file (ND0700541.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant’s summary of service clearly documents the Applicants misconduct resulting in a civilian conviction and four nonjudicial punishments for violations of UCMJ Articles 86 (unauthorized absence, four specifications), 92 (failure to obey), 107 (false official statement, two specifications) and 128 (assault). The Board determined that the documentation provided by the Applicant did not mitigate the misconduct which resulted in the Applicant’s discharge and the characterization of...
NAVY | DRB | 2015_Navy | ND1500022

Original file (ND1500022.rtf) Auto-classification: 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 remain UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL) and the narrative reason for separation shall remain . ” 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...
USMC | DRB | 2007_Marine | MD0700064

Original file (MD0700064.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

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 evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found the Applicant’s discharge proper and equitable. Not appealed.20000222: SummaryCourt-Martial: Charge I: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 86 (2 specifications). (20000303) SJA review (date): (20000412)Separation Authority (date): COMMANDING GENERAL, 2D MARINE DIVISION, II...

Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1101342

Similar Decisions