Upgrade.Vet

NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1200802

Original file (ND1200802.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-BM2, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20120227

Characterization of Service Received:

Narrative Reason for Discharge: COMPLETION OF REQUIRED SERVICE
Authority for Discharge: MILPERSMAN

Applicant’s Request:      Characterization change to:
         Narrative Reason change to:       NON-RETENTION ON ACTIVE DUTY

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive:         US N R (DEP)        19970321 - 19970521     Active: 19970522 - 20010514 HON
                                    20010515 - 20080814 HON
Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20080815     Age at Enlistment: 40
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20110514      Highest Rank/Rate: BM2
Length of Service: Y ear( s ) M onth( s ) 29 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 35
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: 4.0 ( 3 )      Behavior: 4.3 ( 3 )        OTA: 3.85

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      Rifle Pistol (4) (2) (3) (11) MUC

Periods of UA /C ONF :

NJP :    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:

         Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, should read: “ GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM EXPEDITIONARY MEDAL, GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM SERVICE MEDAL, GOOD CONDUCT MEDAL (4) , NATIONAL DEFENSE SERVICE MEDAL (2), NAVY AND MARINE CORPS ACHIEVEMENT MEDAL (3), SEA SERVICE DEPLOYMENT RIBBON (11), NAVY PISTOL MARKSMANSHIP RIBBON, NAVY RIFLE MARKSMANSHIP RIBBON, MERITORIOUS UNIT COMMENDATION ”

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. Nav al Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 11, 20 June 2005 until Present, Article 1910-104, SEPARATION BY REASON OF EXPIRATION OF ACTIVE OBLIGATED SERVICE (EAOS).

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 seeks a change in his RE-code.
2.       The Applicant contends he is entitled to severance pay.
3 .       The Applicant seeks a change in his separation code.

Decision

Date: 20 1 3 03 01             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 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 no NAVPERS 1070/613 (Page 13) warnings, , or court-martials for o f the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) . The Applicant was discharged upon completion of required active service.

: (Nondecisional) The Applicant seeks a change in his 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 B oard for Correction of Naval Records can make changes to reenlistment codes. Additionally, the NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities.

: (Nondecisional) The Applicant contends he is entitled to severance pay. The NDRB has no authority to award separation pay. This authority lies with the Board for Correction of Naval Records. The Applicant may petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records, 701 South Courthouse Road, Suite 1001, Arlington, VA 22204-2490 for further review using DD Form 149. Their website can be found at http://www.donhq.navy.mil/bcnr/bcnr.htm.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends his separation code should be changed to JGH. The JGH separation code is assigned to service members who are not recommended to continued active duty due to failure to meet minimum retention requirements. The Applicant completed his required active service and was discharged upon expiration of his enlistment contract. His KBK separation code correlates with this narrative reason and correctly describes why the Applicant was discharged. No other narrative reason more clearly describes the circumstances surrounding the Applicant’s separation from the Navy. The NAVPERS 1070/21 (Extension of Contract to HYT) found in his record extended his enlistment to incur sufficient obligated service to his HYT date of 21 May 2011, however, the NDRB was unable to determine if he met all of the requirements to receive separation pay per OPNAVINST 1900.4. As stated in Issue 2, the NDRB is not authorized to award separation pay, and the Applicant should apply to the Board for Correction of Naval Records on this issue. 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 COMPLETION OF REQUIRED ACTIVE SERVICE. 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 | 2013_Navy | ND1301323

Original file (ND1301323.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant seeks a change to his narrative reason and separation code to correspond with a Completion of Required Service. Representation: By a vote of the Characterization shall .By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall NON-RETENTION ON ACTIVE DUTY.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,...
NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1300465

Original file (ND1300465.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant contends his Separation Code should be JBK vice JGH. There is nothing in the service record to refute the presumption that the Separation Code of JGH or the narrative reason of Non-Retention on Active Duty were inappropriate, and the documentation submitted by the Applicant does not show that his Separation Code and narrative reason were incorrect. ” Additional...
NAVY | DRB | 2014_Navy | ND1400173

Original file (ND1400173.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...
NAVY | DRB | 2015_Navy | ND1500505

Original file (ND1500505.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Applicant’s Request: Characterization change to: Narrative Reason change to: Reentry Code change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive: USNR (DEP) 20010625 - 20010626 Active: 20010627 - 20050620 Active: 20050621 - 20100704 Period of Service Under Review: Date of Current Enlistment: 20100705 Age at Enlistment: Period of Enlistment: Years Extension Date of Discharge: 20140704 Highest Rank/Rate: FT2 Length of Service: Year(s) Month(s) 00 Day(s) Education Level: AFQT: 78 Evaluation...
NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0601088

Original file (ND0601088.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Date of Decision:20070802Location of Board: Washington D.C.Complete Service Record: Complete Medical Record: Complete Discharge Package: Regarding propriety, the Board found the discharge: Regarding equity, the Board found the discharge: Discussion Issue 1 (Equity). After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Service Record Entries, Medical Record Entries, Elements of Discharge and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found the...
NAVY | DRB | 2015_Navy | ND1500456

Original file (ND1500456.rtf) Auto-classification: 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 remain UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL) and the narrative reason for separation shall remain PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application...
NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0901817

Original file (ND0901817.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Based on the Applicant's official service record, the NDRB determined the narrative reason for separation was correct as issued.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 NON-RETENTION ON ACTIVE DUTY.The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing...
NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1300787

Original file (ND1300787.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to:Narrative Reason change to:HONORABLE W/O MODIFICATIONS Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive:NONE Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Current Enlistment: 20050110Age at Enlistment:39Period of Enlistment: YearsExtensionDate of Discharge:20090514Highest Rank/Rate:BM2Length of Service: Inactive: YearsMonth15 Days Active YearMonths19 DaysEducation Level:AFQT: 98EvaluationMarks:Performance:3.7(3)Behavior:3.3(3)OTA: 3.36Awards and...
NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0902042

Original file (ND0902042.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Additionally, his overall trait average on evaluations during his second enlistment was 3.39 on a 5.0 scale, which meets the standard of acceptable conduct.After reviewing his record and accomplishments, however, the Administrative Board recommended him for separation based on commission of a serious offense, alcohol rehabilitation failure, and civilian conviction.His commanding officer endorsed the board’s findings, and the Applicant was discharged on 24 August 2004 with a general discharge...
NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700333

Original file (ND0700333.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Board construed this issue to mean that, had the Applicant not extended his enlistment, he would have reached his EAS and been discharged for that reason, with a characterization based on his service record, rather than for misconduct and an other than honorable characterization of service. As of this time, the Applicant has not provided sufficient post-service documentation to consider mitigating the misconduct that resulted in the characterization of discharge.In reviewing discharges,...

Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1200802

Similar Decisions