Upgrade.Vet

NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1200804

Original file (ND1200804.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-FR, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20120222

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)        20020516 - 20020602     Active:

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20020603     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20050218      Highest Rank/Rate: FN
Length of Service: Y ear s M onth s 16 D a ys
Education Level:        AFQT: 36
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: 2.0 ( 3 )      Behavior: 2.0 ( 3 )        OTA: 2.22

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      (2) (2)

Periods of UA /C ONF :

NJP :
- 20040127 :      Article (Larceny and wrongful appropriation , wrongfully stole three cartons of cigarettes from the NEX at Bremerton, WA )
         Awarded: Suspended:

- 20041120 :      Article (Dereliction in the performance of duties, in that he failed to do his duties as shaft alley patrol )
         Article (False official statements , in that he made false entries in the logs )
         Awarded : Susp ended:

- 20050121 :      Article (Dereliction in the performance of duties, in that he fell asleep during his roving patrol watch in shaft alley )
         Awarded: Suspended:

S CM :    SPCM:    C C :

Retention Warning Counseling :
- 20040127 :       For violation of UCMJ Article 121, Larceny.

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 :

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

Applicant’s Issues

1 .        The Applicant seeks an upgrade to receive service benefits.
2 .        The Applicant contends his discharge is inequ itable , because it was based on minor offenses.

Decision

Date : 20 1 30124    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 standards of equity and propriety. The Applicant’s record of service included NAVP ERS 1070/613 (Page 13) warning and for o f the Uniform Code of Mil itary Justice (UCMJ): Article 92 ( Dereliction in the performance of duties, 2 specifications ), Article 107 ( False official statements), and Article 121 ( Larceny and wrongful appropriation ) . Based on the offenses 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 .

: (Nondecisional) The Applicant seeks an upgrade to receive 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.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends his discharge is inequitable , because it was based on minor offenses. The NDRB reviews the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge individually, on a case-by-case basis. If such a review reveals an impropriety or inequity, relief is in order. Regulations permit relief on equitable grounds if the Applicant’s discharge is inconsistent with standards of discipline of the Naval Service. During the Applicant’s two years and eight months of service, he was found guilty of multiple serious offenses at two NJPs and also received a Page 13 retention warning. Per 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 , a serious offense is any UCMJ Article violation that warrants a punitive discharge (i.e., Bad Conduct or Dishonorable) as the result of a Special or General Court-Martial. Per Appendix 12 of the Manual for Courts-Martial, violation of UCMJ Articles 92, 107, and 121 warrant a punitive discharge at a Special or General Court-Martial. As a result of the Applicant’s repetitive, serious-offense misconduct, he met the requirements for administrative separation processing for Misconduct (Pattern of Misconduct) and Misconduct (Commission of a Serious Offense). His command, however, did not refer charges to a Special Court-Martial but opted for the more lenient administrative discharge. Based upon available records, nothing indicates that the Applicant’s discharge was in any way inconsistent with the standards of discipline in the United States Navy nor was his misconduct caused by alcohol abuse that started after his fall . A preponderance of the evidence reviewed supports the conclusion that the Applicant committed multiple serious offense s , that separation from the Naval Service 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.

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 s 92, 107 , and 121 .

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 | 1999_Navy | ND99-00458

Original file (ND99-00458.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :961024: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Willfully derelict in the performance of duties by sleeping in the #1 main machinery room while standing the shaft alley patrol watch. The applicant received a retention warning after the first NJP, but violated the same article a second time. Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent that such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant’s performance and...
USMC | DRB | 2015_Marine | MD1401464

Original file (MD1401464.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 remain UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS and the narrative reason for separation shall remain MISCONDUCT. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review...
NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600090

Original file (ND0600090.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

J_ R_ K_(Applicant) ” Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant’s DD Form 214 As of this time, the Applicant has not provided any post-service documentation for the Board to consider. The names and votes of the members of the 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
NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801608

Original file (ND0801608.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Based on the aforementioned evidence of drug abuse the Board determined the separation and characterization of service to be proper and the evidence of inservice performance was not sufficient to mitigate the misconduct committed by the Applicant and the awarded discharge was appropriate. 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 ADDENDUM:...
NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1300610

Original file (ND1300610.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 | 2011_Navy | ND1100862

Original file (ND1100862.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

: (Decisional) (Board Issue) (Equity) During the NDRB’s review of the Applicant’s request for an upgrade, the NDRB identified an impropriety in her dischargein that she did not meet the requirement for separation according to MILPERSMAN Article 1910-138, Separation by Reason of Misconduct - Minor Disciplinary Infractions, dated 22 Aug 2002 to 25 April 2005.Pursuant to MILPERSMAN Article 1910-138, “Members may be processed for separation based upon a series of at least three, but not more...
NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900628

Original file (ND0900628.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 was an appropriate characterization considering the length of service and the UCMJ violations involved, and, based on the lack of 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 Entries,...
NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801619

Original file (ND0801619.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT Applicant’s Issues 1. There is no indication in the Applicant’s record he was recommended for a medical discharge or any disability as a result of the head injury at the time of his discharge. Record Entries, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found ADDENDUM: Information for the Applicant Complaint Procedures : If you believe that the decision in your case is...
NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801474

Original file (ND0801474.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 Applicant did not submit any evidence or make any statements concerning post-service conduct for the NDRB to consider and therefore the NDRB determined an upgrade would be inappropriate.After a thorough...
NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1101206

Original file (ND1101206.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Board did complete a thorough review of the circumstances that led to discharge and the discharge process to ensure the pertinent standards of equity and propriety were met.The Applicant’s record of service included for of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ):Article(,, 0730 - 0815, 10 October 2008), Article (,, wrongfully using government credit card to obtain cash and merchandise), and Article (Wrongful appropriation, , steal money from property of Bank of America in the amount...

Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1200804

Similar Decisions