Upgrade.Vet

NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1101369

Original file (ND1101369.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-LT, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20110505

Characterization of Service Received:

Narrative Reason for Discharge:
Authority for Discharge: SECNAVINST 1920.6C

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

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive: USN (ROTC)     19950605 - 19951101     Active: 19951102 - 20000517 HON
                           USN 20000518 - 20020429 HON

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Appointment : 20020430     Age:
Years Contracted : Indefinite
Date of Discharge: 20070 131       Highest Rank : L T
Length of Service: 4 Years Months 01 D ay
Education Level:         AFQT: 32
Officer’s Fitness reports: Available

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      NMCAM (2) CAR NUC (3) NAVY “ E ” (2) GCM NDSM GWOTEM AFEM GWOTSM SSDR (3) EAWS ESWS SWO

Periods of UA /C ONF :

NJP : 1

- 20030605 :      Article 107 ( False official statements , 2 specifications)
         Article 128 ( Assault )
         Article 133 ( Conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman, 2 specifications)
         [Extracted from FITREP dated 12 October 2003 , and letter by Applicant dated 5 August 2006 submitted to PERS-4834 ].

S CM : NONE       SPCM: NONE               Retention Warning Counseling : NONE

C C : 1

- 20051229 :       Offense: Reckless driving, unreasonable refusal to submit to a breathalyzer test, speeding
         Sentence : 100 hours Community Service, $750.00, Loss of Driving Privileges for 12 months [Extracted from Applicant’s DD Form 293] .

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

The NDRB did note administrative errors on the original DD Form 214:

         “ CONTINUOUS HONORABLE ACTIVE SERVICE FROM 19951102 UNTIL 20020429 ”
         “ SECNAVINST 1920.6C ”

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. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 1920.6C (ADMINISTRATIVE SEPARATION OF OFFICERS), effective 15 December 2005 until PRESENT establishes policies, standards and procedures for the administrative separation of Navy and Marine Corps officers from the naval service in accordance with Title 10, United States Code and DoD Directive 1332.30 of 14 March 1997.

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 seeks an upgrade to further his service in the National Guard.
2.       The Applicant contends he was only convicted of reckless driving, and his command passed judgment on him before the civilian court case had concluded.
3.       The Applicant contends his post-service conduct warrants consideration for an upgrade to Honorable.

Decision

Date: 20 1 2 0710             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 statements, 2 specifications), Article 128 (Assault), and Article 133 (Conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman, 2 specifications) and one civilian conviction for reckless driving, unreasonable refusal to submit to a breathalyzer test, and speeding. Based 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 consult with a qualified counsel, but he did submit a written statement .

: (Nondecisional) The Applicant seeks an upgrade to further his service in the National Guard. 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 B oard for Correction of Naval Records 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.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends he was only convicted of reckless driving , and his command passed judgment on him before the civilian court case had concluded . A servicemember may be processed for separation for the commission of a serious military or civilian offense when the offense or a closely related offense is a violation of the UCMJ and warrants a punitive discharge in accordance with the Manual for Courts-Martial. There is no requirement for adjudication by judicial or non-judicial proceedings, but the offense must be substantiated by a preponderance of the evidence. In reviewing cases, the NDRB is not bound by decisions of the civilian courts to reduce or dismiss charges subsequent to the Applicant’s discharge. However, such information can be and was considered by the NDRB in making a determination as to the equity of the characterization of service. The preponderance of evidence lies in the fact that the Applicant was arrested by civil authorities for refusing to submit to a breathalyzer test and speeding while under the suspicion of an intoxicated state . At a minimum, th e A pplicant ’s actions could be considered reckless endangerment, an Article 134 violation under the UCMJ , and would warrant an unfavorable 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. Moreover, the evidence of record also reflects the Applicant had established a pattern of misconduct based on a previous NJP for UCMJ violations. The NDRB found the characterization of the Applicant’s discharge equitable and consistent with the characterization of discharge given others in similar circumstances. Relief denied.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends his post-service conduct warrants consideration for an upgrade to Honorable. The NDRB considers 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. The Applicant provided a personal statement and five character references. The Applicant could have provided documentation as detailed in the Post-Service Conduct paragraph in the Addendum , however, completion of these items alone does not guarantee an upgrade from an unfavorable discharge as each discharge is reviewed by the Board on a case by case basis to determine if post-service conduct establishes that the in-service misconduct was an aberration. To warrant an upgrade, the Applicant’s post-service efforts need to be more encompassing. The Board determined that the documentation submitted by the Applicant does not demonstrate if in-service misconduct was an aberration. The characterization of service received was appropriate considering the length of service and UCMJ violations. 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 | 2010_Navy | ND1001766

Original file (ND1001766.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

His record of service did not include any NAVPERS 1070/613 (Page 13) warnings or trials by court-martial.Based on the UCMJ offense committed by the Applicant, command administratively processed for separation.The NDRB did not have the Applicant’s administrative separation package to determine whether the Applicant waived rights to consult with a qualified counsel, submit a written statement, and request an administrative board or a General Court-Martial Convening Authority review. ”...
NAVY | DRB | 2014_Navy | ND1400722

Original file (ND1400722.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Board applauds the Applicant’s civilian service in support of the Global War on Terrorism and his productivity in the workforce; however the Board determined that the documentation submitted by the Applicant neither mitigates nor demonstratesthat his narrative reason for separation was inappropriate.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...
NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1101263

Original file (ND1101263.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

No documentation was found in the Applicant’s service record explaining how the first charge was disposed.With regards to the second drunken driving charge, which occurred on 2 October 2008, documentation found in his service record along with information provided by the Applicant suggests that, while civilian charges were still pending, his command adjudicated the second drunken driving charge at NJP proceedings and processed him for administrative separation after he failed to show cause...
USMC | DRB | 2015_Marine | MD1401495

Original file (MD1401495.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

20130221: Commanding General, 3d Marine Aircraft Wing forwarded Report of Misconduct to the Commandant of the Marine Corps recommending the Applicant’s administrative separation as a probationary officer via notification procedures. 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...
USMC | DRB | 2012_Marine | MD1201274

Original file (MD1201274.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The administrative board voted 3-0 that the preponderance of the evidence supported the Applicant had a pattern of misconduct and recommended separation with a characterization Under Other Than Honorable Conditions. ” 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...
NAVY | DRB | 2015_Navy | ND1401538

Original file (ND1401538.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 UNACCEPTABLE 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,...
NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0901612

Original file (ND0901612.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant is seeking better employment opportunities2. ” 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...
USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1000437

Original file (MD1000437.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

record entries, and discharge process, the Board found Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall 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 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...
NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1200121

Original file (ND1200121.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to:Narrative Reason change to:Convenience of the Government Summary of ServicePrior Service: Inactive: USN (ROTC) 20080724 - 20090122 Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Appointment: 20090123Age: Years Contracted: IndefiniteDate of Discharge: 20110131 Highest Rank: ENSLength of Service: 2 Year(s) Month(s) 08 Day(s)Education Level: AFQT: NFIROfficer’s Fitness reports: AvailableAwards and Decorations (per DD 214):Rifle Pistol Periods of...
NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1001478

Original file (ND1001478.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant’s record of service did include one non-judicial punishment for violations of the UCMJ: Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation, 1 specification) and Article 133 (Conduct unbecoming an officer, 1 specification).Based on the offenses committed by the Applicant, her command administratively processed her for separation.The NDRB did not have the Applicant’s administrative separation package to determine whether the Applicant waived rights to consult with a qualified...

Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1101369

Similar Decisions