Upgrade.Vet

NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1200617

Original file (ND1200617.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-STG3, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20120131

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)        20010525 - 20010618     Active: 20010619 - 20050616

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20050617     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20061108      Highest Rank/Rate: STG2
Length of Service: Y ear( s ) M onth( s ) 22 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 82
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: 3.5 ( 2 )      Behavior: 2.5 ( 2 )        OTA: 2.65

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):

Periods of UA : 20060514 - 20060912

NJP :

- 20060927 :      Article (Desertion)
         Article (Missing movement)
         Article (Failure to obey order or regulation, 4 specification s )
         Specification 1: Having knowledge of a lawful order issued to return to the ship, an order which it was his duty to obey, did, at Jacksonville, FL, on or about 15 May 2006, fail to obey the same.
         Specification 2: Having knowledge of a lawful order issued to return to the ship, an order which it was his duty to obey, did, at Jacksonville, FL, on or about 15 May 2006, fail to obey the same.
         Specification 3 : Having knowledge of a lawful order issued to return to the ship, an order which it was his duty to obey, did, at Jacksonville, FL, on or about 16 May 2006, fail to obey the same.
         Specification 4 : Having knowledge of a lawful order issued to return to the ship, an order which it was his duty to obey, did, at Jacksonville, FL, on or about 16 May 2006, fail to obey the same.
         Awarded: Suspended:

S CM :    SPCM:    CIVIL ARREST:             Retention Warning Counseling :

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

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

                  “ CONTINUOUS HONORABLE ACTIVE SERVICE FROM 010619 UNTIL 050616 ”

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 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 85 , Article 87, and Article 92 .

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

Applicant’s Issues

1.        The Applicant contends the characterization of his discharge should be upgraded because he needed to remain with his wife and family long enough to ensure that his wife’s surgery was successful .
2.       The Applicant contends his in-service conduct is worthy of consideration for an upgrade .

Decision

Date : 20 1 2 1206             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 for o f the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article (Desertion) , Article (Missing movement) , and Article (Failure to obey order or regulation, 4 specification s) . Based on the offense s committed by the Applicant, command administratively process ed 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 the characterization of his discharge should be upgraded because he needed to remain with his wife and family long enough to ensure that his wife’s surgery was successful . The NDRB recognizes that serving in the military is challenging. Most servicemembers, however, serve honorably. In fairness to those servicemembers, commanders and separation authorities are tasked to ensure that undeserving Sailors receive no higher characterization than is due. The Applicant had an opportunity at NJP to explain his reasons for deserting and submitted a letter to a Captain describing in more detail why he left. Additionally, t he Applicant waived his right to an administrative separation board where again he would have had the opportunity to bring up mitigating factors if he felt he deserved a higher characterization of service than Under Other Than Honorable Conditions. After a complete review of the records and the Applicant’s statements, t he NDRB determined the Applicant’s characterization of service was warranted . Relief denied.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends his in-service conduct is worthy of consideration for an upgrade . The Applicant received an Honorable characterization of service for his first enlistment from June 2001 to June 2005. Each period of enlistment is an independent obligation and characterization is determined for that specific period of time. In his second enlistment, the Applicant’s command found him guilty at NJP of violating UCMJ Articles 85, 87, and 92, all of which are considered serious offenses that could have resulted in a punitive discharge at a Special or General Court-Martial. However, his command opted for the more lenient administrative discharge, which does not automatically entail reduction in rank to E-1. Based on the Applicant’s record of service, the NDRB determined the Applicant engaged in conduct involving one or more acts or omissions that constituted a significant departure from the conduct expected of members of the Naval Service, and the awarded characterization of service 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 | 2003_Navy | ND03-00911

Original file (ND03-00911.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (C and D).The Applicant did not introduce any decisional issues for the Board’s consideration. Verifiable proof of any post-service accomplishments must be provided in order for the Applicant to claim post-service conduct and behavior as a reason to upgrade a less than honorable discharge. Relief denied.The Applicant remains...
NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00841

Original file (ND04-00841.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION 891024: [USS LUCE (DDG-38)] notified Applicant of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of drug abuse/wrongful use and a pattern of misconduct as evidenced by three Commanding Officer’s Non-Judicial Punishments in this enlistment.
NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600259

Original file (ND0600259.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions). Patient was reassured x 7 hours at which time patient was taken to see the Commanding Officer. Applicant stated he is feeling very depressed and request attarax.
NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00861

Original file (ND02-00861.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: USNR (DEP) None Active: USN None Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 871106 Date of Discharge: 930729 Length of Service (years, months, days):Active: 05 05 26 (does not exclude lost time) Inactive: 00 02 27 After a thorough...
NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1000864

Original file (ND1000864.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The NDRB determined that the Applicant’s post-service effort does not warrant clemency.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...
NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500013

Original file (ND0500013.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable and the reason for the discharge be changed to “rate reduction.” The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review. Accordingly, I recommend Aviation Ordnanceman Airman Recruit F_ ‘s characterization of service to be General (Under Honorable Conditions).”970514: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Dereliction in the performance of duties No indication of appeal in...
NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700048

Original file (ND0700048.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

NOT FOUND IN RECORDRights Elected at Notification:Consult with Counsel Obtain Copies of Documents Submit Statement(s) (date) Administrative Board GCMCA Review Commanding Officer Recommendation (date): Separation Authority (date): COMMANDING OFFICER, NAVAL HOSPITAL JACKSONVILLE (20060227) Reason for discharge directed: - Characterization directed: GENERAL Date Applicant Discharged: 20060228 Additional Documents Submitted by Applicant and Considered By BoardTotal Number of Pages: 35 Related to...
NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500289

Original file (ND0500289.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ND05-00289 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20041130. The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge 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. As of this time, the Applicant has not provided any post-service documentation for the Board to consider.
USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801384

Original file (MD0801384.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT Applicant’s Issues 1. The Board determined the characterization of service received, “Under Other Than Honorable Conditions”, was an appropriate characterization considering the length of service and the UCMJ violations involved, and based on the limited post service documentation provided an upgrade would be inappropriate. ” Additional Reviews : Subsequent to a document review, former members...
NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1200642

Original file (ND1200642.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...

Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1200617

Similar Decisions