Upgrade.Vet

NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1101375

Original file (ND1101375.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-MM3, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20110506

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)        20001121 - 20010626     Active:          2001 06 27 - 20050329

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20050330     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20061027      Highest Rank/Rate: MM2
Length of Service: Year(s) Month(s) 28 D ay(s)
Education Level:        AFQT: 54
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: 3.5 ( 2 )      Behavior: 3.0 ( 2 )        OTA: 3.50

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      Rifle ESWS ASR

Periods of UA /C ONF :

NJP :

- 20051117 :      Article (Failure to obey lawful order or regulation) In that MM2 B_ , who knew of his duties on USS CHARLOTTE, on or about 26 October 2005, was derelict in the performance of those duties in that he failed to follow with procedural compliance, specifically with CPS, Step 18 of NAVSEA OD44979 Vol 2 Pt. 14 , as it was his duty to do.
         Awarded: Suspended:

- 20060926 :      Article (False official statement) In that MM3_, did onboard USS CHARLOTTE, on or about 25 September 2006, with intent to deceive, sign an official record, to wit: making false entries into Below-decks watch log, which record was false in that he did not take the indicated round, and was then known by MM3_, to be so false.
         Awarded: Suspended:

S CM :    SPCM:    C C :

Retention Warning Counseling:

- 20050330 :      For Failure to meet Physical Readiness Test (PRT) standards

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

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

         Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, should read: “ NATIONAL DEFENSE SERVICE MEDAL, GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM SERVICE MEDAL, ENLISTED SUBMARINE WARFARE SPECIALIST, GOOD CONDUCT MEDAL, NAVY UNIT COMMENDATION, SEA SERVICE DEPLOYMENT RIBBON, ARCTIC SERVICE RIBBON, EXPERT RIFLE SHOT MEDAL, MERITORIOUS UNIT COMMENDATION, NAVY "E" RIBBON, LETTER OF COMMENDATION, NAVY EXPEDITIONARY MEDAL ”
         “CONTINUOUS HONORABLE ACTIVE SERVICE FROM 01 06 27 UNTIL 050329 ”
         Block 28, “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:                  Other Documentation:
                  Additional Statements:
         From Applicant:          From/To Representation:          From/To Congress member:

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 11, effective 26 April 2005 until 11 June 2008, 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 107 .

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

Applicant’s Issues

1.       The Applicant contends his discharge was too harsh for the offenses committed.
2.       The Applicant contends the positive aspects of his record of service warrants consideration for upgrading his discharge.
3.       The Applicant suggests his post-service conduct is worthy of an upgrade to Honorable.
4.       The Applicant states that he was not offered an opportunity to attend an alcohol awareness class .

Decision

Date: 20 1 2 0802             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 NAV PERS 1070/613 (Page 13) warning and non-judicial punishments for o f the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 92 ( Failure to obey order or regulation, 1 specification) and Article 107 ( False official statement, 1 specification) . Based on the offenses committed by the Applicant, command administratively processed for separation. When notified of administrative separation processing using the procedure, the Applicant waived rights to consult with a qualified counsel, submit a written statement, and request a General Court-Martial Convening Authority review.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contend s his discharge was too harsh for the offenses committed. The NDRB reviews the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge individually, on a case-by-case basis. If such a review reveals an impropriety or inequity, relief is in order. Regulations permit relief on equitable grounds if the Applicant’s discharge is inconsistent with standards of discipline of the Naval Service. Based upon available records, nothing indicates that the Applicant’s discharge was in any way inconsistent with the standards of discipline in the United States Navy. A preponderance of the evidence reviewed supports the conclusion that the Applicant deliberately failed to obey an order or regulation and made a false official statement and that separation from the N avy was appropriate with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge. Relief denied.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends the positive aspects of his record of service warrants consideration for upgrading his discharge to H onorable. Despite a service member’s prior record of service, certain serious offenses warrant separation from the Navy to maintain proper order and discipline. Violation of Articles 92 and 107 of the UCMJ are such offenses that may warrant separation regardless of performance, grade, or time in service. Th ese offenses usually 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. During two NJP proceedings, the Applicant was found guilty of violating Articles 92 and 107 of the UCMJ. His command did not pursue a punitive discharge, but opted instead for the more lenient administrative discharge. Relief denied.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant suggests his post-service conduct, as evidenced by his sobriety and character reference, is worthy of an upgrade. 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. To warrant an upgrade, the Applicant’s post-service efforts need to be more encompassing. 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. The characterization of service received was appropriate considering the serious offense s he committed. Relief denied.

Issue 4: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant states that he was not offered an opportunity to attend an alcohol awareness class, which he believes would have saved his career. 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 claim. The Board found no information in the A pplicant’s medical and service records indicating that he was ever screened for alcohol abuse or dependency, requested to go to rehabilitation, or was inequitably or improperly denied the opportunity to get treatment for alcohol abuse or dependency . His statement alone does not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity in this case. Therefore, the Board concluded relief based on this issue was not warranted. 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 | 2015_Navy | ND1401691

Original file (ND1401691.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. Accordingly, the NDRB determined that the Applicant’s characterization should read: “UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL).” 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...
NAVY | DRB | 2015_Navy | ND1500309

Original file (ND1500309.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 | 2006_Navy | ND0600818

Original file (ND0600818.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Applicant did not have a personality disorder. Regarding the Applicant’s Issue 2, the Board determined that thisIssue is not an Issue which can form the basis of relief for the Applicant. Additional Issues: In addition to an Applicant’s submitted issues, the Board reviewed the Applicant’s discharge under the equity provision.When the service of a member of the U.S. Navy has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service as honorable.
USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0901369

Original file (MD0901369.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.Wants to attend college. Marines who do not achieve these standards should not receive an Honorable discharge.The Applicant’s Pro/Con marks were 3.9/3.5, which do not the minimum acceptable standards.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 | 2015_Navy | ND1500551

Original file (ND1500551.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 MISCONDUCT (SERIOUS OFFENSE). ADDENDUM: Information for the Applicant Complaint Procedures : If you believe the decision in your case is unclear, not responsive to the issues you...
NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1100878

Original file (ND1100878.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Representation: NONE 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 | ND1300375

Original file (ND1300375.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to:Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive:USNR (DEP)20031020 - 20040706Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Current Enlistment: 20040707Age at Enlistment:Period of Enlistment: YearsExtensionDate of Discharge:20090922Highest Rank/Rate:HM3Length of Service:Years Months22 DaysEducation Level:AFQT: 64EvaluationMarks:Performance:3.4(5)Behavior:2.8(5)OTA: 3.33Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):JMUAPeriods of...
NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801872

Original file (ND0801872.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The NDRB determined the awarded discharge 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 with the decisional...
NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900875

Original file (ND0900875.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-YNSN, USN Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request Application Received: 20090304 Characterization of Service Received: Narrative Reason for Discharge: (SERIOUS OFFENSE) Authority for Discharge: MILPERSMAN Applicant’s Request: Characterization change to: Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive: USNR (DEP) 20050126 - 20050804 Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 20050805 Age at Enlistment: Period of Enlistment: Years Extension Date of...
NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1201689

Original file (ND1201689.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant contends his discharge was inequitable, because it was based on an isolated incident.2. Violation of Articles 107 and 121 are two such offenses that warrant processing for administrative separation regardless of grade, performance, or time in service. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal...

Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1101375

Similar Decisions