Upgrade.Vet

NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1101671

Original file (ND1101671.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-EWSA, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20110628

Characterization of Service Received:

Narrative Reason for Discharge:
Authority for Discharge: MILPERSMAN 3630605

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

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive:         US N R (DEP)        19950513 - 19951107     Active:

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 19951108     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 19970624      Highest Rank/Rate: EWSA
Length of Service: Y ear M onth s 17 D ays
Education Level:        AFQT: 74
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: NFIR         Behavior: NFIR OTA: NFIR

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      NDSM NAVY”E ”

Periods of UA /C ONF :

NJP : 1

- 19970311 :      Article 121 (Larceny, stole a compact disk player and 40 compact disks on 19961024)
         Awarded: RIR FOP RESTR Suspended: RIR

S CM : NONE S PCM: NONE C C : NONE Retention Warning Counseling : NONE

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

The NDRB note d an administrative error on the original DD Form 214:

         “ MILPERSMAN 3630605 ”

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 14, effective 3 October 1996 until 12 December 1997, Article 3630605, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL 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 121 .

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

Applicant’s Issues

1.        The Applicant seeks an upgrade for education benefits.
2.       The Applicant contends he was innocent of the misconduct for which he was separated.

Decision

Date : 20 1 2 0821             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 Applicant’s record of service included one nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 121 (Larceny, stole a compact disk player and 40 compact disks on 19961024) . B ased on the offense 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 and submit a written statement. The Applicant has an HKQ separation code on his DD Form 214 , which indicates he waived his right to request an administrative board.

: (Nondecisional) The Applicant seeks an upgrade for education 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.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends he was innocent of the misconduct for which he was separated. If the Applicant felt he was mistakenly charged with a crime, it was his obligation to contest those charges at the time they were made. During NJP and an administrative separation board, he would have had the opportunity to mount a defense against the charges. Although his chief may have told him to admit guilt at the NJP, the Applicant could have mounted a defense at an administrative separation board once he was notified of the separation processing for commission of a serious offense. The Applicant submitted no evidence to support his contention of innocence . After a complete review of the records, the NDRB determined that the Applicant’s discharge was proper and equitable. 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 | 2009_Navy | ND0900312

Original file (ND0900312.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The NDRB reviewed the Applicant’s service medical record and determined the Applicant was not diagnosed with a mental illness while in the Navy. The NDRB determined the awarded discharge characterization was appropriate and an upgrade founded upon the Applicant’s record of service 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...
NAVY | DRB | 2014_Navy | ND1400306

Original file (ND1400306.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant wants to reenlist.2. Based on the offenses committed by the Applicant, command administratively processed for separation. ” 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 | 2008_Navy | ND0800896

Original file (ND0800896.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

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 conduct mitigates the reason for the characterization of discharge.The Board determined based on post service documentation provided an upgrade would be inappropriate.After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Record...
NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600086

Original file (ND0600086.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. I therefore strongly recommend that EMFN G_ (Applicant) be separated from the naval service and that he receives an Other Than Honorable characterization of service.”010523: Commander, Amphibious Group TWO, authorize the Commanding Officer, USS BATAAN (LHD 5) that the Applicant will be discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct. The names,...
NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700222

Original file (ND0700222.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Medical and Service Record Entries, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found that Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive: USNR (DEP)19990609 - 19990629Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 19990630Years Contracted:Date of Discharge:20001101 Length of Service: 01 Yrs 04Mths02 DysLost Time:Days UA: Days Confined: Education Level: Age at...
NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1002276

Original file (ND1002276.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Accordingly, the NDRB determined that the Applicant’s issue did not provide a basis in which additional relief could be granted. Relief denied.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, medical and service record entries, and discharge process, 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...
NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900724

Original file (ND0900724.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Applicant’s Request: Characterization change to: Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive: USNR (DEP) 19951006 - 19951105 Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 19951106Age at Enlistment: Period of Enlistment: Years Extension Date of Discharge: 19970815Highest Rank/Rate: AALength of Service: Year(s) Month(s) 10 Day(s) Education Level: AFQT: 37Evaluation Marks: Performance: 2.0 (1) Behavior: 3.0 (1) OTA: 2.6Awards and Decorations (per DD...
NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00746

Original file (ND04-00746.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions). No indication of appeal in the record.030129: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.030129: Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all...
USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0902349

Original file (MD0902349.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. The Applicant should be aware submission of these items alone does not guarantee clemency as each discharge is reviewed by the NDRB on a case-by-case basis.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...
NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01135

Original file (ND03-01135.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. Decision A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20040430. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 19940121 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A).

Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1101671

Similar Decisions