Upgrade.Vet

NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1200813

Original file (ND1200813.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-AT3, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20120222

Characterization of Service Received:

Narrative Reason for Discharge: MISCONDUCT (SERIOUS OFFENSE)

Authority for Discharge: MILPERSMAN

Applicant’s Request:      Characterization change to:
         Narrative Reason change to:

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive:         US N R (DEP)        20080411 - 20080728     Active:

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20080729     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20110415      Highest Rank/Rate: AT3
Length of Service: Y ear( s ) M onth( s ) 17 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 99
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: 3.3 ( 3 )      Behavior: 2.8 ( 4 )        OTA: 3.07

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):

Periods of UA /C ONF :

NJP :

- 20090604 :      Article (Absence without leave)
         Article 112 (Drunk on duty)
         Awarded: Suspended:

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

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 29, effective 10 November 2009 until 17 August 2011, 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 .

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

Applicant’s Issues

1 .       The Applicant contends his discharge is inequitable , because his command wrongly retaliated against him due to his request to be discharged from the Navy in order to pursue an officer/ROTC program in the U.S. Air Force.
2.       The Applicant contends the charges against him were false and fabricated to advance the reprisals against him.
3 .       The Applicant contends he was denied due process.

Decision

Date : 20 1 3 0 205             Location: Washington D.C .        R epresentation :

By a vote of the Characterization shall .
By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall MISCONDUCT (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. 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 in June 2009 for o f the Uniform Code of Mil itary Justice (UCMJ): Article 86 ( Absence without leave ) and Article 112 ( Drunk on duty). On 5 May 2010 , the Applicant was charged with Article 86 (Absence without leave) and Article 92 (Failure to obey and order or regulation , Drinking, to impairment, while in a duty status ), for which he refused NJP. Based on the Applicant’s violation of UCMJ Article 92, command administratively processed for separation. When notified of administrative separation processing using the procedure on 19 January 201 1 , the Applicant exercised rights to co nsult with a qualified counsel but waived his rights to submit a written statement and request a General Court-Martial Convening Authority (GCMCA) review.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends his discharge is inequitable , because his command wrongly retaliated against him due to his request to be discharged from the Navy in order to pursue an officer/ROTC program in the U.S. Air Force. The Applicant also contends the charges against him were false and fabricated to advance the reprisals against him. The government enjoys a presumption of regularity in the conduct of its affairs. The Applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support his issue. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the Applicant produced any evidence, to support the contention th at the charges against him were false or fabricated or that he was retaliated against for hi s desire to leave the Navy to enter a U.S. Air Force commissioning program. The Applicant’s service record included one nonjudicial punishment for violations of UCMJ Articles 86 and 112. In May 2010, the Applicant was further charged with violations of UCMJ Article 86 (Absence without leave) and Article 92 ( Failure to obey and order or regulation ) . V iolation of UCMJ Artic le 92 is considered a serious offense per Appendix 12 of the Manual for Courts-Martial and warranted a punitive discharge (i.e., Bad Conduct or Dishonorable) as the result of a Special or General Court-Martial. Being considered a serious offense warrants administrative separation processing for Misconduct (Serious Offense). Per Naval Military Personnel Manual Article 1910-142, c ommission of a serious offense does not require adjudication by nonjudicial or judicial proceedings or civilian conviction , however, the offense must be substantiated by a preponderance of evidence. The statements and documents provided by the Applicant do not refute the presumption of regularity in this case. Relief denied.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends he was denied due process. Pursuant to Navy regulation s , a servicemember is not entitled to an Administrative Separation Board unless the least favorable characterization of service is Under Other Than Honorable Conditions or the servicemember has at least six years of active duty service. Since the Applicant had less than six years of service at the time of discharge and was awarded a General (Under Honorable Conditions) characterization of service, he was not entitled to a hearing . Additionally, during the notification process, the Applicant waived his right to a General Court-Martial Convening Authority review , though it does appear that he asked for such a review when he was notified the first time of administrative separation processing on 23 December 2010. The

GCMCA advised notifying the Applicant of separation due to Misconduct (Serious Offense) , and the Applicant waived his right to a second review . After a complete review of the Applicant’s records and the Applicant’s statement on his DD Form 293, the NDRB determined he was afforded all rights and due process and was properly and equitably discharged with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) for Misconduct (Serious Offense). 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 | 2014_Navy | ND1400317

Original file (ND1400317.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Since the Applicant was administratively separated and not separated upon expiration of enlistment or fulfillment of service obligation, the characterization of service is determined by the quality of the member’s total performance of duty and conduct during the current enlistment, including the reason for separation. ” 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...
NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1300822

Original file (ND1300822.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 | 2008_Navy | ND0801512

Original file (ND0801512.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Board determined based on the lack of post service documentation provided an upgrade would be inappropriate and the characterization of service received, “Under Other Than Honorable”, was an appropriate characterization considering the time served and the nature of the UCMJ violations involved.After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Record, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found Pertinent...
NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1200215

Original file (ND1200215.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Although specifics were not found in his service record, it appears from the Applicant’s statement that he was charged with a second DUI for which he was eventually found not guilty. ” 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...
NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1201965

Original file (ND1201965.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant contends he should have received a General discharge for Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure.2. An administrative separation board determined by a preponderance of the evidence that he met the requirements for separation for both reasons, and the Separation Authority, who makes the final decision as to the primary basis for separation, chose Misconduct (Serious...
NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1002297

Original file (ND1002297.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Based on the offenses committed by the Applicant, his command administratively processed him for separation. ” 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 of enhancing reenlistment opportunities.
NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801721

Original file (ND0801721.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: Substance Abuse: Criminal Records: Family/Personal Status: Community Service: References: Additional Statements: From Applicant: From Representation:From Congress member: Other Documentation (Describe): DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW...
NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1100340

Original file (ND1100340.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 entriesand 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...
NAVY | DRB | 2015_Navy | ND1500414

Original file (ND1500414.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 (SERIOUS OFFENSE). ” Additional Reviews : After a...
NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0901944

Original file (ND0901944.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. It is of no consequence that the assault charge was subsequently dismissed by the civilian court since the command was not required to delay or postpone the administrative discharge processing pending the outcome of his civilian case when there was sufficient evidence to substantiate the discharge based on other misconduct committed by the Applicant.The Board determined that...

Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1200813

Similar Decisions