Upgrade.Vet

NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1200112

Original file (ND1200112.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-MMFR, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20111021

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)        20010330 - 20010719     Active:

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20010720     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20031028      Highest Rank/Rate: MMFA
Length of Service: Y ear( s ) M onth( s ) 09 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 35
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: 1.0 ( 1 )      Behavior: 1.0 ( 1 )        OTA: 1.00

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

Time Lost (per DD 214): 20030703-20020708, 6 days ; 20030713-20030714, 2 days; 20030718, 1 day; 20030725-20030811, 18 days

NJP :

- 20020907 :      Article (Larceny)
         Awarded: Suspended:

- 20020924 :      Article (Absence without leave - restricted muster, 3 specifications )
         Specification 1: 1800-1805, 20020907
         Specification 2: 0630-0655, 20020911
         Specification 3: 0630- 0645, 20020922
         Awarded : Susp ended:

S CM :    SPCM:    C C :

Retention Warning Counseling :

- 20020907 :       For larceny of government property.

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

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

         “ ”

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), re-issued October 2002, effective 22 August 2002 until 25 April 2005, 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 121 .

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

Applicant’s Issues

1. The Applicant contends he was discharged because alcohol was found in clothing, he was not afforded UCMJ procedures, alcohol treatment, or counseling, he was processed for discharge within 12 hours of the incident, and there is no known paperwork that specifically explains his discharge.

Decision

Date: 20 1 2 1018 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. T he Board did complete a thorough review of the circumstances that led to discharge and the discharge process to ensure discharge met the pertinent sta ndards of equity and propriety. The Applicant’s record of service included NAVPERS 1070/613 (Page 13) warning and for o f the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 121 ( Larceny, one specification ) and Article 86 ( Absence without leave, three specifications). Based on the offenses committed by the Applicant, command administratively processed for separation. When notified on 17 October 2003 of administrative separation processing using the procedure, the Applicant waived rights to consult with a qualified counsel, submit a written statement, and request an administrative board .

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends he was discharged because alcohol was found in clothing; he was not afforded UCMJ procedures, alcohol treatment, or counseling; he was processed for discharge within 12 hours of the incident; and there is no known paperwork that specifically explains his discharge. The Applicant’s record reveals that he was found guilty at NJP (Captain’s Mast) on 7 September 2002 for violating UCMJ Article 121 (Larceny). After this NJP, he was issued a Page 13 retention warning. On 24 September 2002, the Applicant was found guilty at NJP of violating UCMJ Article 86 (Absence without leave, 3 specifications). At this point, he met the requirements for separation processing due to Misconduct (Commission of a Serious Offense) and Misconduct (Pattern of Misconduct). However, his command decided to give the Applicant yet one more chance to correct his poor behavior. Although it is not specific in the records, another event occurred in October 2003 that led the command to initiate separation proceedings. In accordance with the Naval Military Personnel Manual, servicemembers may be separated based on the commission of a serious military or civilian offense when the commanding officer believes the specific circumstances of the offense warrant separation and the offense would warrant a punitive discharge if adjudicated at trial by court-martial for the same or closely related offense. Commission of a serious offense does not require adjudication by nonjudicial or judicial proceedings, however, the offense must be substantiated by a preponderance of evidence. The statements provided by the Applicant do not refute the presumption of regularity in this case. In fact, the Applicant mentioned an alcohol-related incident on his DD Form 293. If the commanding officer believed there was an offense, that is all that was needed to begin separation proceedings. There was no requirement to go to NJP again. There was also no requirement for alcohol treatment or counseling. Even if treatment or counseling was offered, the purpose of this treatment is not to rehabilitate a servicemember for further service but rather to provide treatment before separation. On 17 October 2003, the Applicant’s command notified him, in writing, of separation processing. At this time, the Applicant waived his rights, in writing, to consult with a qualified counsel, submit a written statement, and request an administrative board. If the Applicant believed he was being separated improperly or inequitably, he was provided the opportunity to present his case before an administrative board. However, he waived that right, thus accepting the Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge recommended in the letter of notification. The Separation Authority reviewed the discharge paperwork and ordered the Applicant to be discharged Under Other Than Honorable Conditions for Misconduct (Commission of a Serious Offense). There is no evidence in the record, nor has the Applicant produced any evidence, to support the contention that his discharge was either improper or inequitable. For his misconduct, the Applicant received a characterization of service completely in line with what others received for their misconduct. 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

USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0901319

Original file (MD0901319.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE.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...
NAVY | DRB | 2014_Navy | ND1301788

Original file (ND1301788.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. 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 separation shall remain . ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are...
NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1301777

Original file (ND1301777.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant wants an upgrade for employment opportunities.2. ” 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...
NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1300001

Original file (ND1300001.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to:Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive:USNR (DEP)20090206 - 20090719Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Current Enlistment: 20090720Age at Enlistment:Period of Enlistment: YearsExtensionDate of Discharge:20120110Highest Rank/Rate:ANLength of Service:Years Months21 DaysEducation Level:AFQT: 59EvaluationMarks:Performance:3.3(4)Behavior:3.0(4)OTA: 3.46Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):Periods of...
NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801476

Original file (ND0801476.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The events that transpired during the Applicant’s career in the Navy were a direct result of the Applicant’s self-denial he had an alcohol problem and the Navy only diagnosing him as an alcohol abuser and not as being alcohol dependent. The characterization of service received, “General (Under Honorable Conditions)”, was determined to be an appropriate characterization considering the length of service and the UCMJ violations involved, and based on the limited post service documentation...
NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700177

Original file (ND0700177.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Board determined that the documentation provided by the Applicant did not mitigate the misconduct which resulted in the Applicant’s administrative separation and characterization of his service.For the information of Applicant, the record clearly documents the Applicant’s violation of UCMJ Article 121 (larceny). Discharge Process Date Notified: 19930511Reason for Discharge:-Least Favorable Characterization: Date Applicant Responded to Notification:19930514 Rights Elected at...
NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1000617

Original file (ND1000617.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.Applicant seeks an upgrade to reenlist in the U.S. Navy Reserve.2. After considering the facts surrounding this case and the documentation submitted by the Applicant, the Board found this issue did not provide a basis for which relief could be granted.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entries, and...
NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1301654

Original file (ND1301654.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

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 separation shall remain.The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing for a period of fifteen years from the date of discharge. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are...
NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1200804

Original file (ND1200804.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 | 2007_Navy | ND0700911

Original file (ND0700911.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 Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214 The NDRB did note administrative error(s) on the original DD Form 214: “ MILPERSMAN 1910-122 ” The NDRB will recommend to the Commander, Navy Personnel Command, that the DD 214 be corrected as appropriate. ” Additional Reviews :...

Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1200112

Similar Decisions