Upgrade.Vet

NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1200133

Original file (ND1200133.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-SKSA, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20111018

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)        19941230 - 19950509     Active:

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 19950510     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 19980227      Highest Rank/Rate: SKSN
Length of Service: Y ear s M onth s 17 D a ys
Education Level:        AFQT: 56
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: 3.2 ( 1 )      Behavior: 2 .0 ( 1 )        OTA: 2.60

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      NEM

Periods of C ONF :

NJP :

- 19970324 :      Article (Failure to obey order or regulation)
         Awarded : Susp ended:

- 19970403 :      Article (Failure to obey order or regulation)
         Awarded : Susp ended:

- 19970929 :      Article (Absence without leave, 0 630-0940, 19970919)
         Awarded: Suspended:

S CM : SPCM: C C :     Retention Warning Counseling :

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

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

         “ MILPERSMAN 1910-142 ”

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 18, effective 12 December 1997 until 29 March 2000, 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 92 .

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

Applicant’s Issues

1.        The Applicant contends he developed a drinking problem due to the atmosphere he was placed in and was only an 18-year-old kid who was trying to fit in.
2.       The Applicant contends his d ischarge is unjust and too harsh considering his 3 years of honorable service.

Decision

Date: 20 1 2 1101             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 Board did complete a thorough review of the circumstances that led to discharge and the discharge process to ensure discharge met the pertinent standards of equity and propriety. The Applicant’s record of service included for o f the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article (Absence without leave, 0630-0940, 19970919) and Article (Failure to obey order or regulation , 2 specifications ). The Applicant’s record also reflects an Incident/Complaint Report, dated 7 December 1997, from Commanding Officer, Naval Station Pearl Harbor, reporting multiple violations of UCMJ Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation) , Article 95 (Resisting apprehension, flight, breach of arrest, escape) , and Article 128 (Assault) . Based on the offense s 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 an administrative board .

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends he developed a drinking problem due to the atmosphere he was placed in and was only an 18-year-old kid who was trying to fit in. While the Applicant may feel his youth and immaturity were the underlying causes of his misconduct, the record clearly reflects his willful misconduct and demonstrated he was unfit for further service. The evidence of record does not demonstrate the Applicant was not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions. The NDRB recognizes that many of our servicemembers are young at the time they enlist for service, however, most still manage to serve honorably. While some members may be less mature than others, the NDRB does not view a member’s claim of immaturity or developing a drinking problem to be mitigating factor s or sufficient reason s for misconduct. Relief denied.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends his discharge is unjust and too harsh considering his 3 years of honorable service. The NDRB reviews the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge individually, on a case-by-case basis. Regulations permit relief on equitable grounds if the Applicant’s discharge is inconsistent with standards of discipline of the Naval Service. The Applicant’s service included three nonjudicial punishments for violations of UCMJ Articles 86 and 92 . The Applicant’s record also reflects an Incident/Complaint Report , dated 7 December 1997, from Commanding Officer, Naval Station Pearl Harbor, reporting multiple violations of UCMJ Article s 92, 95, and 128. Violations of UCMJ Article s 92, 95 , and 1 28 are considered serious offenses for which a punitive discharge is authorized. However, his command did not pursue a punitive discharge but opted for the more lenient administrative discharge. A preponderance of the evidence reviewed supports the conclusion that the Applicant committed a serious offense, that separation from the Navy was appropriate, and that a n Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge was 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 | 2007_Navy | ND0701068

Original file (ND0701068.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)19920806 - 19930124Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 19930125Years Contracted:; Extension: Date of Discharge:19950315Length of Service: 02 Yrs 01Mths21 DysLost Time:Days UA: 1 Days Confined: Education...
NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00582

Original file (ND02-00582.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ND02-00582 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020402, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. It is recommended that ENFR H_ (Applicant) receive a General discharge. 940420: BUPERS directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.
NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00131

Original file (ND02-00131.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ND02-00131 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 011018, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Applicant's letter to the Board dtd 01AUG06 Copy of DD Form 214 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: None Inactive: USNR...
USMC | DRB | 2012_Marine | MD1200078

Original file (MD1200078.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. 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...
USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1000089

Original file (MD1000089.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 6210, MISCONDUCT ,...
NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1001996

Original file (ND1001996.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...
USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0900272

Original file (MD0900272.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

However, the NDRB determined the Applicant’s post-service conduct, while not sufficiently creditable to warrant clemency to the degree requested by the Applicant, is sufficient to warrant clemency to the extent his discharge will be changed to an “Under Other Than Honorable” characterization.After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Service and Medical Record Entries, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board...
NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900285

Original file (ND0900285.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT Applicant’s Issues 1. The NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge to resolve pay or service benefit issues. ” 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 | 2009_Navy | ND0901268

Original file (ND0901268.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to: Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive:USNR (DEP)19970821 - 19970919Active:19970920 - 2001090220010903 - 2005070620050707 - 20081023 Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 20081024Age at Enlistment:Period of Enlistment: YearsExtensionDate of Discharge:20090330Highest Rank/Rate:OS2Length of Service: Year(s)Month(s)07 Day(s)Education Level:AFQT: 51EvaluationMarks:Performance:5.0(1)Behavior:2.0(1)OTA:...
NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1301582

Original file (ND1301582.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

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.Issue 2: (Nondecisional) The Applicant seeks an upgrade to enhance employment opportunities. ” 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...

Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1200133

Similar Decisions