Upgrade.Vet

NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1201327

Original file (ND1201327.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-CSSN, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20120531

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)        20030918 - 20040909     Active:          20040910 - 20090207 HON

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20090208     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20100714      Highest Rank/Rate: CS3
Length of Service: Y ear M onths 07 D a y s
Education Level:        AFQT: 35
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: 3.3 ( 3 )      Behavior: 2.7 ( 3 )        OTA: 2.86

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):

Periods of UA /C ONF :

NJP :

- 20100526 :      Article 80 (Attempts , 3 specifications )
         Specification 1: Attempt to commit an offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, to wit: Attempt to distribute 50 pills of Oxy c otin (80mg) , a S chedule II controlled substance.
         Specification 2: Attempt to commit an offense under the Uniform Code of Military justice, to wit: Attempt to distribute 10 pills of Oxy c otin (80mg) , a S chedule II controlled substance.
         Specification 3: Attempt to commit an offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, to wit: Attempt to purchase 5 pills of Ecstasy , a S chedule II controlled substance for five females, one who was 15 years of age, but was unsuccessful.
         Awarded: Suspended:

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

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

The NDR B did note administrative error s on the original DD Form 214:

         “ CONTINUOUS HONORABLE ACTIVE SERVICE FROM 040910 UNTIL 090207 ”

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), 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 .

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 80 .

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 he cooperated with NCIS and his prior record of service was outstanding.

Decision

Date: 20 1 3 0314 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 proprie ty. The Applicant’s record of service included for o f the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 80 ( Attempts , 3 specific ation s : [1] Attempt to commit an offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, to wit: Attempt to distribute 50 pills of Oxy c otin (80mg) , a S chedule II controlled substance ; [2] Attempt to commit an offense under the Uniform Code of Military justice, to wit: Attempt to distribute 10 pills of Oxycotin (80mg) , a S chedule II controlled substance; [3] Attempt to commit an offense under the Uniform Cod e of Military Justice, to wit: Attempt to purchase 5 pills of Ecstasy , a S chedule II controlled substance for five females, one who was 15 years of age, but was unsuccessful ) . Based on the offense s committed by the Applicant, command administratively processed for separation. The NDRB did not have the Applicant’s administrative separation package to determine whether or not the Applicant waived rights to consult with a qualified counsel, submit a written statement, and request an administrative board.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends his discharge is inequitable , because he cooperated with NCIS and his prior record of service was outstanding. Despite a servicemember’s prior record of service, certain serious offenses, even though isolated, warrant separation from the to maintain proper order and discipline. Violation of Article 80 is one such offense that warrants processing for administrative separation regardless of grade, performance, enlistments, or time in service. This 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. The Applicant was found guilty of violation of Article 80 . However, his command did not pursue a punitive discharge but opted instead for the more lenient administrative discharge , possibly because he cooperated with NCIS . The NDRB found the characterization of the Applicant’s discharge was equitable and consistent with the characterization of discharge given others in similar circumstances. 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 | 2011_Navy | ND1101720

Original file (ND1101720.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. ” 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. There is no requirement or law that grants recharacterization solely on the issue of obtaining veterans benefits and this issue does not serve to...
NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1200111

Original file (ND1200111.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant requests that his monetary recoupment for his Naval Academy education be waived or mitigated.2. After a review of the Applicant’s service, cooperation with NCIS, misconduct that he admitted to, and recommendations from the chain of command, the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) assigned a General (Under Honorable Conditions)...
NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700105

Original file (ND0700105.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

In so choosing, the record also demonstrates that the Applicant had the opportunity to review the evidence against him, discuss that evidence and his options with detailed defense counsel, and admitted guilt to the charge against him in order to avoid such a trial. 20050926 Consulted with or Waived Counsel: Acknowledged Understanding Elements: Acknowledged Guilt to: Article(s) 80 BCD/DD authorized for offense(s) Acknowledged Consequences of OTH: Type of Characterization...
USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801458

Original file (MD0801458.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT Applicant’s Issues 1. Urinalysis was Command Directed, therefore not allowed to be used in characterization of discharge or for punishment. The Applicant may petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR), 2 Navy Annex, Washington, DC 20370-5100 to request these changes.After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service,
USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801915

Original file (MD0801915.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant did not provided any documentation or evidence in support of his request and the Board determined that clemency would be inappropriate. The Board determined the characterization of service received, “ Bad Conduct Discharge”, was an appropriate characterization considering the length of service and the UCMJ violations involved, and based on the lack of post service documentation provided, clemency would be inappropriate.Should the Applicant obtain additional evidence or post...
NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1000506

Original file (ND1000506.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The record, however, contains no evidence of any wrongdoing by NCIS or anyone else in the discharge process. 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 . ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal...
USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1000629

Original file (MD1000629.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

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. The Good Conduct Medal statement in Block 18 of his DD-214 is a reference to the restart of the time counter for good conduct consideration and is not the awarding of the medal.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record...
NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801953

Original file (ND0801953.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to: Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive: USMCR (DEP) 19720616 - 19720628 Active enlisted: 19720629 – 19740828 USMC 19740829 – 19750411 USMCR19750412 – 19781201 USAR 19790915 – 19830909 USNR 19830910 – 19850908 USNR 19850909 – 19870429 USNR Period of Service Under Review: Date of Commission: 19870430Age: 33Years Contracted: Indefinite Date of Discharge: 20020702Highest Rank: LCDRLength of Service: 15 Year(s)...
NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1301883

Original file (ND1301883.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant’s record of service included for of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article (False official statement, ) and Article (Wrongful use, possession, etc. ” 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...
NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0902214

Original file (ND0902214.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

When notified of administrative separation processing using the procedure, the Applicant rights to consult with a qualified counsel, submit a written statement and request an administrative board.By a three to zero vote the administrative board found misconduct – drug abuse and misconduct – commission of a serious offense. 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...

Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1201327

Similar Decisions