Upgrade.Vet

NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1201391

Original file (ND1201391.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-AS3, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20120612

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)        19990323 - 19991129     Active:          19991130 - 20021022
                                             20021023 - 20101129

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20101130     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20120601      Highest Rank/Rate: AS 1
Length of Service: Y ear M onth s 02 D a ys
Education Level:        AFQT: 35
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: 3.7 ( 3 )      Behavior: 2.0 ( 3 )        OTA: 2.57

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      (2) (4) (5)

Periods of UA /C ONF :

NJP :

- 20120425 :      Article (General A rticle , 2 specifications )
         Specification 1: F raternization/being involved in a senior-subordinate relationship with Airman
         Specification 2: W rongfully having sexual intercourse with said Airman, a married woman not his wife
         Awarded: Suspended: Suspension vacated 20070517

- 20120517 :      Article (Failure to obey order or regulation)
         Article (General A rticle - breaking restriction)
         Awarded : Susp ended:

S CM : SPCM: C C :

Retention Warning Counseling :

- 20120426 :       For fraternization and adultery.

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 991130 UNTIL 10 1 129 ”
         “ PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT ”

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 Present, Article 1910-140, SEPARATION BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT - PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT.

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 seeks an upgrade for service benefits.
2.       The Applicant contends his discharge for a Pattern of Misconduct is improper .

Decision

Date: 20 1 3 0403             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 NAV PERS 1070/613 (Page 13) warning and for o f the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 92 ( Failure to obey order or regulation ) and Article 134 ( General A rticle, 3 specifications : Fraternization/being involved in a senior-subordinate relationship with Airman , W rongfully having sexual intercourse with said Airman, and Breaking restriction ) . Based on the offenses committed, 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 or a General Court-Martial Convening Authority review . The Separation Code of HKA on his DD Form 214, however, indicates he waived his right to appear before an administrative b oard.

: (Nondecisional) The Applicant seeks an upgrade for 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. Additionally, the NDRB has no authority to grant an upgrade for a former servicemember and his family to receive TRICARE benefits.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends his discharge for a Pattern of Misconduct is improper. The Applicant received Honorable discharges for two enlistments from November 1999 to November 2010. Each period of enlistment is an independent obligation and characterization is determined for that specific period of time. During his third enlistment, which started on 30 November 2010, the Applicant was found guilty at an NJP, received a Page 13 retention warning, and was then found guilty at a second NJP. Pursuant to Naval Military Personnel Manual A rticle 1910-140 , a m ember may be separated when during the current enlistment they have two or more nonjudicial punishments, court-martials, or civil convictions (or combination thereof) , and have violated a NAVPERS 1070/613 warning prior to processing . In his current enlistment, the Applicant met the requirements for administrative separation for Misconduct (Serious Offense) and Misconduct (Pattern of Misconduct). An NJP from 2009 was not used to calculate his Pattern of Misconduct. His two NJPs and Page 13 in his current enlistment met the requirement. Despite his s eniority , his command leniently recommended a General discharge. Based upon available records, nothing indicates that the Applicant’s discharge was in any wa y inconsistent with the standards of discipline in the United States Navy. A preponderance of the evidence reviewed supports the conclusion that the Applicant had a pattern of misconduct in his current enlistment, that separation from the Naval Service was appropriate, and that a General ( Under 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.

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 | 2013_Marine | MD1300422

Original file (MD1300422.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. 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...
USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1101867

Original file (MD1101867.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Based on the Article 112a violation, processing for administrative separation is mandatory.The Applicant’s service record documents a punitive conviction and punishment, as adjudged by a Special Court-Martial, on 29 December 2005. 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...
USMC | DRB | 2013_Marine | MD1301458

Original file (MD1301458.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to: Narrative Reason change to: Summary of ServicePrior Service: Inactive:USMCR (DEP)20080710 - 20081019Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Current Enlistment: 20081020Age at Enlistment: Period of Enlistment: Years MonthsDate of Discharge:20111102Highest Rank:Length of Service: Year(s)Month(s)14 Day(s)Education Level: AFQT:57MOS: 6323Proficiency/Conduct Marks (# of occasions):()/()Fitness Reports: Awards and Decorations (per DD...
USMC | DRB | 2012_Marine | MD1201069

Original file (MD1201069.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

: (Decisional) (Board Issue) (Equity) PARTIAL RELIEF WARRANTED. ” 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.
USMC | DRB | 2012_Marine | MD1200491

Original file (MD1200491.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

During his less than three years in the Marine Corps, he received four retention warnings and was found guilty of numerous UCMJ violations at four NJPs, all of which occurred before his return from Afghanistan in January 2010. ” 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...
USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1000107

Original file (MD1000107.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Regulations limit the NDRB’s review to a determination of the propriety and equity of the 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 and the narrative reason for separation shall remain . ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance...
USMC | DRB | 2014_Marine | MD1400742

Original file (MD1400742.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The NDRB determined the Applicant did not submit any documentation, nor is there anything in his records, to warrant clemency. ” 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 | 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...
NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1201748

Original file (ND1201748.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant wants to have an opportunity to help veterans.2. 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...
NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1100827

Original file (ND1100827.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

It is evident that this service member should not be recommended for retention in the Naval Service … .” After considering all the available evidence regarding the Applicant’s misconduct, the Separation Authority directed that the Applicant be separated from the Navy with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge due to Pattern of Misconduct. Relief denied.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entries and the...

Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1201391

Similar Decisions