Upgrade.Vet

NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1101491

Original file (ND1101491.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-CECN, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20110526

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:         USNR (DEP)       20001122 - 20001205              Active:          20001206 - 20051024 HON

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20060314     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20071107      Highest Rank/Rate: CECN
Length of Service:
         Inactive:        Year(s) Month(s) 24 D ay(s)
         Active   Year(s) Month(s) 00 D ay(s)
Education Level:        AFQT: 91
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: 2.5 ( 2 )      Behavior: 2.5 ( 2 )        OTA: 2.65

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

Periods of UA /C ONF :

NJP :     S CM :    SPCM:    C C :

Retention Warning Counseling:

- 20061119 :      For failure to meet physical readiness test standards.

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. The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 12, effective 5 August 2005 until 2 April 2009, MILPERSMAN Article 1910-158, SEPARATION BY REASON OF UNSATISFACTORY PARTICIPATION IN THE READY RESERVE.

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 wants her discharge upgraded so she can reenlist in the military.
2 .       The Applicant contends her discharge was inequitable , because she told her Navy Reserve unit in Chicago that she was mov ing to Arkansas and could not drill anymore and was assured that all administrative matters would be taken care of.

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 NAVPERS 1070/613 (Page 13) warning . It did not include any non-judicial punishments or trials by court-martial for violation s of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) . According to an Evaluation Report and Counseling Record dated 22 July 2007, the Applicant had not attended drill since January 2007, miss ing more than nine drills within a 12-month period without being excused. This constitutes unsatisfactory drill participation. Based on the Applicant’s unsatisfactory drill participation, her command administratively processed her for separation. Documentary e vidence found in the Applicant’s service record , specifically , her signature on the certified mail delivery receipt, suggests that she received the notification letter sent by her command but did not return the letter acknowledging her rights. According to Navy regulations, failure to respond to the notification letter constitutes a waiver of rights.

: (Non - decisional) The Applicant wants her discharge upgraded so she can reenlist in the military. The NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities. Furthermore, since the NDRB has no jurisdiction over reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Navy, Marine Corps, or any other of the Armed Forces, it is not authorized to change a Reentry (RE) code. Only the Board for Correction of Naval Records can make changes to RE codes. Neither a less than fully honorable discharge nor an unfavorable RE code is, in itself, a bar to reenlistment. A request for a waiver can be submitted during the processing of a formal application for reenlistment through a recruiter. Regulations limit the NDRB’s review solely to a determination of the propriety and the equity of a discharge.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends her discharge was inequitable , because she told her Navy Reserve unit in Chicago that she was mov ing to Arkansas and could not drill anymore and was assured that all administrative matters concerning the move would be taken care of. 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 h er issue. Although the Applicant submitted statements from two witnesses who stated that the Applicant told her unit that she was moving to Arkansas and could no longer drill, this does not explain her unexcused absence s or inability to respond to a certified mail delivery (receipt signed by the Applicant) announcing the Navy Reserve’s intention to discharge the Applicant. Further, an evaluation from 22 July 2007 states that the Applicant “does not return or respond to repeated phone calls and e-mails.” As a former Sailor with five years of active duty experience, the Applicant knew that she could not just walk away from a service obligation. Neither the Applicant’s statement nor the statement s provided by her witness es w ere sufficient proof to overcome the government’s presumption of regularity. 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 | 2012_Navy | ND1201792

Original file (ND1201792.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to:Narrative Reason change to:I WOULD LIKE TO RE-ENLIST Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive:NONE Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Current Enlistment: 20080226Age at Enlistment:Period of Enlistment: YearsExtensionDate of Discharge:20100712Highest Rank/Rate:CECNLength of Service: Inactive: Year(s)Month(s) 07 Day(s) Active Year(s)Month(s) 10 Day(s)Education Level:AFQT: 57EvaluationMarks:Performance:3.0(1)Behavior:3.0(1)OTA:...
USMC | DRB | 2014_Marine | MD1400117

Original file (MD1400117.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Furthermore, the letter states the Applicant is receiving treatment as a result of her sexual assault while in the Marine Corps. However, the Applicant bears some responsibility for missing required drills and not communicating with her command, and so a further upgrade to Honorable is not warranted.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 the discharge was proper but not...
USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0900802

Original file (MD0900802.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Specific recommendation include following the unit’s drill schedule.- 19990110: For following deficiencies: UA for Jan 1999 drill weekend. The NDRB 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, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found ADDENDUM: Information for the Applicant Complaint Procedures...
NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1301391

Original file (ND1301391.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...
USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1100632

Original file (MD1100632.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant’s record of service includedtwelve 6105 counseling warningsfor missed drills from February 2007 to March 2008.Based on the Applicant’s failure to participate, her command administratively processed her for separation. In the absence of any evidence to support the Applicant’s issue, the NDRB determined an upgrade would be inappropriate. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the...
USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0901188

Original file (MD0901188.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

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. ” 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. ...
NAVY | DRB | 2015_Navy | ND1501140

Original file (ND1501140.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 the discharge was proper and equitable at the time of discharge. Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall remain GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS) and the narrative reason for separation shall remain UNSATISFACTORY PARTICIPATION. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been...
USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1000337

Original file (MD1000337.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: Pertinent Regulation/Law A. Paragraph 6213 of the Marine...
NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1101427

Original file (ND1101427.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...
NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801056

Original file (ND0801056.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The second incident occurred in the hotel where the drilling reservists stay during drill periods. The Board determined 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...

Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1101491

Similar Decisions