Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1201116
Original file (ND1201116.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-ACAR, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20120423
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)        19990514 - 20000126     Active:  
         USNR (DEP)        20000725 - 20000907

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20000908     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20030718      Highest Rank/Rate: ACAA
Length of Service: Y ear( s ) M onth( s ) 08 D a y ( s )
 Education Level:        AFQT: 48
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: 3.0 ( 1 )      Behavior: 3.0 ( 1 )        OTA: 3.00

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      N ONE

Periods of UA /C ONF :

NJP :     SPCM:    CC:               Retention Warning Counseling :

S CM :

- 20030529 :       Art icle (Larceny and wrongful appropriation , 3 specifications )
         Specification 1: On diverse occasions from on or about 29 April 2002 , to on or about 1 September 2002, steal merchandise of a value of about $1164.29, the property of various convenience stores.
          Specification 2: On diverse occasions from on or about 29 April 2002, to on or about 10 August 2002, steal merchandise of a value of about $145.18, the property of various convenience stores.
         Specification 3: On diverse occasions from on or about 12 July 2002, to on or about 14 July 2002, steal merchandise of a value of about $570.28, the property of various convenience stores.
          Sentence :

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

The NDRB did note administrative error(s) on the original DD Form 214:
         “ ”
        
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), 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 121 .



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

Applicant’s Issues

 1.        The Applicant contends he was told that six months after his discharge, his characterization would upgrade to General (Under Honorable Conditions).
2.       The Applicant contends he has his life together.
Decision

Date: 20 1 3 0213             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 sta ndards of equity and propriety. The Applicant’s record of service inclu ded Summary Court-Martial for o f the Uniform Code of Mil itary Justice (UCMJ): 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 administrative board procedure, the Applicant waived rights to consult with a qualified counsel, submit a written statement, and request an administrative board .

: ( De cisional) (Propriety/Equity) RELIEF NOT WARRANTED. The Applicant contends he was told that six months after his discharge, his characterization would upgrade to General (Under Honorable Conditions). 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. The Navy does not issue automatic upgrades. Former servicemembers do have the right to have their discharges reviewed to determine if they were properly and fairly discharged. The NDRB reviewed the Applicant’s record of service and determined that he was properly discharged Under Other Than Honorable Conditions for Misconduct (Serious Offense) after being found guilty at a Summary Court-Martial for violation of UCMJ Article 121 (Larceny). Relief denied.

Issue 2: (Decisional) (Equity) RELIEF NOT WARRANTED. The Applicant contends he has his life together. The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the re-characterization of a discharge. However, there is no law, or regulation, that provides that an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Normally, to permit relief, a procedural impropriety or inequity must have been found to exist during the period of enlistment in question. Besides the Applicant’s statement on the DD Form 293, he failed to provide any documentary evidence on his behalf for post-service consideration. The Applicant could have provided documentation as detailed in the Post-Service Conduct paragraph in the Addendum with the recognition that completion of these items alone does not guarantee an upgrade from an unfavorable discharge as each discharge is reviewed by the Board on a case by case basis to determine if post-service conduct establishes that the in-service misconduct was an aberration. Without post-service documentary evidence, the Board determined the awarded characterization of service shall remain Under Other Than Honorable Conditions.
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

  • AF | DRB | CY2003 | FD2002-0524

    Original file (FD2002-0524.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL) GRADE AFSN/SSAN pumn AMN | Q0SRSND Iie TYPE * GEN" PERSONAL APPEARANCE X RECORD REVIEW %) NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL YES MEMBERS SITTING ISSUES A92.37, A94.53, A72.01 INDEX NUMBER A67.50 ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE LETTER OF NOTIFICATION BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL’S RELEASE TO THE BOARD ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01018

    Original file (ND02-01018.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 Applicant's letter to the Board, dtd Oct 15, 2001 Applicant's spouse, E_ A. L_, letter to the Board, dtd Oct 29, 2001 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: USNR (DEP) 860826 - 870705 COG Active: USN 870706 - 940116 HON Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 940117*...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1102168

    Original file (ND1102168.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant seeks an upgrade due to passage of time.2. The NDRB acknowledges the Applicant’s desire to provide a better life for himself and his family, however, this issue does not serve to provide a foundation upon which the Board can grant relief. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801916

    Original file (MD0801916.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    However, the Applicant is advised 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 warrants clemency. 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: Information for the Applicant Complaint...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2015_Navy | ND1401236

    Original file (ND1401236.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    An Administrative Board convened and, after hearing all the testimony and evidence in the Applicant’s case, determined by a 3-0 vote that the Applicant should be discharged from the Navy with an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500641

    Original file (ND0500641.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions). Award: Restriction and extra duty for 15 days.971024: Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (Commanding Officers NJP held on 23 October 1997 for violation UCMJ Article 86 – Unauthorized absence), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.971211: NJP for...

  • USMC | DRB | 2014_Marine | MD1400003

    Original file (MD1400003.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00360

    Original file (ND01-00360.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00360 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010202, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable or general/under honorable conditions. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Statement from applicant Copy of DD Form 214 Two pages from applicant's service record PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1100822

    Original file (ND1100822.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 | 2007_Navy | ND0700159

    Original file (ND0700159.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board found that Discussion Issues 1 - 3: either which the Board cannot form the basis of relief for the Applicant, or the Board does not have the authority to grant the relief for which the Applicant petitioned. Discharge Process Date Notified: 20051221Reason for Discharge:- Least Favorable Characterization: Date Applicant Responded to Notification:20051221Rights Elected at Notification: Consult with Counsel Obtain Copies of Documents Submit Statement(s)...