Upgrade.Vet

NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1201132

Original file (ND1201132.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-ETSR, 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)        19991222 - 20000123     Active:

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20000124     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20010821      Highest Rank/Rate: ETSN
Length of Service: Y ear( s ) M onth( s ) 29 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 70
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: NFIR         Behavior: NFIR OTA: NFIR

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):

Periods of C ONF :

NJP :     SPCM:    CC:      Retention Warning Counseling :

S CM :

- 20010728 :       Art icle (Absence without leave, 20010213-20010727 , 165 days )
         Sentence :

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

The NDRB did note administrative error(s) on the original DD Form 214:

         “ ETSR ”
“ E1 ”
         Block 12h, Effective date of pay grade, should read: “ 01 07 28 ”
         “ ”

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 :

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

Applicant’s Issues

1.        The Applicant contends he was discharged under the Don’t A sk, D on’t T ell (DADT) policy , which has been overturned .
2.       The Applicant contends he went into an unauthorized absence ( UA ) status after receiving death threats.
3.       The Applicant contends there were several instances where the Navy did not uphold their end of contractual agreements.

Decision

Da te: 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 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 of the UCMJ: Article (Absence without leave, 20010213-20010727, 165 days ). On 17 January 2001, the Applicant made an impromptu statement to his immediate chain of command that he was gay. On 24 January 2001, the Applicant was notified of separation proceedings for Homosexual Conduct. However, these proceedings were suspended due to the Applicant’s unauthorized absence (UA) status. Based on the subsequent violation of Article 86 by the Applicant and his admission of homosexual conduct , command administratively processed for separation. When notified of administrative separation processing using the procedure for Homosexual Conduct and Misconduct (Serious Offense) , the Applicant exercised rights to consult with a qualified counsel and submit a written statement, but waived his right to request an administrative board .

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends he was discharged under the Don’t A sk, D on’t T ell policy , which has been overturned. The Applicant was initially notified of separation proceedings for Homosexual Conduct . However, separation processing was suspended due to the Applicant’s UA status. Upon apprehension by the Norfolk Police after 165 days of being UA, t he Applicant pled guilty to violating UCMJ Article 86 at a Summary Court-Martial . Violation of Article 86 for this period of time usually results in an unfavorable characterization of discharge or, at a maximum, a punitive discharge and possible confinement if adjudicated and awarded as part of a sentence by a special or general court-martial. However, his command did not pursue a punitive discharge but opted instead for the more lenient administrative discharge. The Applicant was then re-notified of administrative separation for Homosexual Conduct and Misconduct (Serious Offense). The Separation Authority determined Misconduct (Serious Offense) was the primary basis for separation and ordered the Applicant be separated Under Other Than Honorable Conditions. The repeal of DADT has no bearing on the Applicant’s discharge, which was proper and equitable for Misconduct (Serious Offense). Relief denied.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends he went UA to protect himself after receiving death threats. The Applicant further contends that he felt betrayed by his command and could not trust the Navy to protect him due to previous actions by his recruiter and division master chief. Based on the Applicant’s concern for his safety, his ship’s Executive Officer temporarily reassigned the Applicant on 13 February 2001 to Readiness Support Group Norfolk , however, the Applicant never checked in and subsequently was declared a deserter until he was apprehended on 27 July 2001. D uring the separation proceedings and after exercising his right to counsel, the Applicant waived his right to request a hearing before an Administrative Separation Board . If the Applicant believed there were mitigating circumstances, it was his obligation to contest those charges at the time they were made. During an Administrative Separation Board, he would have had the opportunity to mount a defense against the charges. The Applicant submitted no evidence to support his contention, therefore, the NDRB relied upon the presumption of regularity in the conduct of government affairs. Additionally, the events that led him to not trust the Navy because he believed they did not hold up their end of contractual agreements has no bearing on the propriety and equity of his discharge. After a complete review of the facts and circumstances of this case, the NDRB determined his discharge was proper and equitable and that accommodations were made to protect his life. 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), Change 31, effective 25 January 2001 until 21 August 2002, 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 86 (UA greater than 30 days) .

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

USMC | DRB | 2012_Marine | MD1201783

Original file (MD1201783.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to: Narrative Reason change to: Reentry Code change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive:Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Current Enlistment: 19990823Age at Enlistment: Period of Enlistment: Years MonthsDate of Discharge:20030421Highest Rank:Length of Service: Inactive: Year(s)Month(s)04 Day(s) Active: Year(s)Month(s)66 Day(s)Education Level: AFQT:86MOS: 2531Proficiency/Conduct Marks (# of occasions):()/()Fitness Reports:...
USMC | DRB | 2012_Marine | MD1201651

Original file (MD1201651.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. Relief granted.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 the discharge was proper and equitable at the time of discharge.However, based on changes to Department of Defense policy, the awarded characterization of service shall , the narrative reason for...
USMC | DRB | 2012_Marine | MD1201893

Original file (MD1201893.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to: Narrative Reason change to:MBK2 VOLUNTARY RELEASE / EXPIRATION OF TERM OF SERVICE Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive:USMCR (DEP)19940804 - 19950716Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Current Enlistment: 19950717Age at Enlistment: Period of Enlistment: Years MonthsDate of Discharge:19990303Highest Rank:Length of Service: Year(s)Month(s)17 Day(s)Education Level: AFQT:59MOS: 3381Proficiency/Conduct Marks (# of...
NAVY | DRB | 2014_Navy | ND1400811

Original file (ND1400811.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

In accordance with the 20 September 2011 Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) memorandum regarding the repeal of the DADT law, service discharge review boards should normally grant requests to change the narrative reason for discharge wherein Homosexual Conduct was the only basis for discharge. As Homosexual Admission was the only basis for discharge, the NDRB voted to change the Narrative Reason for Separation to Secretarial Authority. ” Additional Reviews : After a...
USMC | DRB | 2013_Marine | MD1301187

Original file (MD1301187.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Narrative Reason for Separation: In accordance with the 20 September 2011 Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) memorandum regarding the repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law, service discharge review boards should normally grant requests to change the narrative reason for discharge wherein Homosexual Admission was the only basis for discharge. Relief denied.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, service...
NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1201745

Original file (ND1201745.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Representation: By a vote of the Characterization shall .By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall .By a vote of the Reenlistment Code 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...
NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1200377

Original file (ND1200377.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall .By a vote of 5-0, the Reentry Code shall change to RE-1.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 NDRB presumes regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs unless there is substantial, credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include...
NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1200616

Original file (ND1200616.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 NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD...
NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700840

Original file (ND0700840.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant claims that she lied about having a homosexual marriage because she did not want to be in California and desired to completely leave the military, so she “conjured up a story about…being in a homosexual relationship.” Separation processing is mandatory if the commanding officer believes, based on credible information, that the service member has committed homosexual conduct. ” Additional Reviews : Subsequent to a document review, former members are eligible for a personal...
NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1001985

Original file (ND1001985.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

” 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. The Applicant is advised that completion of these items alone does not guarantee the upgrade of an unfavorable discharge, as each...

Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1201132

Similar Decisions