Upgrade.Vet

NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1201393

Original file (ND1201393.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-OSSN, 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)        20050610 - 20060404     Active:

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20060405     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20090629      Highest Rank/Rate: OSSN
Length of Service: Year(s) Month(s) 25 D ay(s)
Education Level:        AFQT: 64
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: 2.3 ( 2 )      Behavior: 2.0 ( 2 )        OTA: 2.28

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      Rifle Pistol

Periods of UA /C ONF :

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

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

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

         “ 19860905 ”

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:                  Other Documentation:
                  Additional Statements:
         From Applicant:          From/To Representation:          From/To Congress member:

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A. The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 23, effective 19 May 2008 until 9 November 2009, Article 1910-156, SEPARATION BY REASON OF UNSATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE.

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 was based on personal financial circumstances in his home rather than on his on-the-job performance, and he never received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) due to his performance and never received punishment before he joined the Navy.
2 .       The Applicant contends his post - service accomplishments warrant consideration for an upgrade.

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 no record of misconduct. Based on the loss of his security clearance , his command administratively processed him for separation. The NDRB did not have the Applicant’s administrative separation package to determine whether or not the Applicant waived his rights to consult with a qualified counsel, submit a written statement, and request a General Court-Martial Convening Authority review.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends his discharge was based on personal financial circumstances in his home rather than on his on-the-job performance, and he never received NJP due to his performance and never received punishment before he joined the Navy. Per Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 23, effective 19 May 2008 until 9 November 2009, Article 1910-156, SEPARATION BY REASON OF UNSATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE, “ Members may be separated when they are unqualified for further Naval Service as demonstrated by … denial or revocation of security clearance (for cause), thereby precluding ability to perform duties in assigned rating … and violating a NAVPERS 1070/613 (Rev. 07-06), Administrative Remarks counseling/warning that specifically addresses these deficiencies. ” The Applicant’s record reflects a terminated security clearance due to an inability to meet financial obligations. Although there is no record of a NAVPERS 1070/613 counseling in the Applicant’s service records, the NDRB presumes regularity in the conduct of government affairs and presumes that his command warned him that his failure to meet his personal financial obligations could lead to the revocation of his security clearance and administrative discharge for Unsatisfactory Performance. Per Article 1910-156, characterization of service when discharging a Sailor for Unsatisfactory Performance should be General unless an Honorable is warranted. An Honorable characterization of service is warranted when the quality of a member’s service generally meets the standard of acceptable conduct and performance for Naval personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization of service would be clearly inappropriate. A General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge is warranted when the quality of the member’s service has been honest and faithful but significant negative aspects of the member’s conduct or performance of duty outweighed the positive aspects of the member’s service record. Though the Applicant had no waivers for misconduct to join the Navy and had no misconduct while in service, his overall evaluation trait average during his 39 months of service was 2.28, which indicates below-average performance and conduct and does not warrant an Honorable characterization of service. After a complete review of the Applicant’s records, the NDRB determined his discharge was proper and equitable. Relief denied.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends his post - service accomplishments warrant consideration for an upgrade. The NDRB considers 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. The Applicant provided a personal statement, evidence of establishing a not - for - profit organization, a news excerpt detailing his run for mayor of Flint, MI, paperwork submissions for city office candidacy, and evidence of community

support. The Applicant could have provided documentation as detailed in the Post-Service Conduct paragraph in the Addendum , however, 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. The Board determined t he characterization of service received was appropriate considering the length of service and reason for discharge . 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 | ND1101345

Original file (ND1101345.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Representation: NONE 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 governmental affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include...
NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1201334

Original file (ND1201334.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to:Narrative Reason change to:REQUESTED, BUT NOT SPECIFIED Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive:USNR (DEP)20080318 - 20080625Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Current Enlistment: 20080626Age at Enlistment: Period of Enlistment: YearsExtensionDate of Discharge:20110826Highest Rank/Rate: ET3Length of Service: Year(s) Month(s) 01 Day(s)Education Level:AFQT: 69EvaluationMarks:Performance:3.0(6)Behavior:3.0(6)OTA: 3.02Awards and...
NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1201512

Original file (ND1201512.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to:Narrative Reason change to:DISABILITY Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive:USNR19960408 - 19960430Active:19960501 - 2002042820020429 - 20050526 Period of Service Under Review: Date of Current Enlistment: 20091005Age at Enlistment: Period of Enlistment: YearsExtensionDate of Discharge:20100903Highest Rank/Rate: AT1Length of Service: Year(s) Month(s) 29 Day(s)Education Level:AFQT: 64EvaluationMarks:Performance:3.0(1)Behavior:3.0(1)OTA:...
NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1201529

Original file (ND1201529.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 | 2011_Navy | ND1100077

Original file (ND1100077.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant seeks a change in his RE code. Representation: none 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...
NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1101503

Original file (ND1101503.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. The NDRB is only authorized to determine if the discharge was proper and equitable.Issue 2: (Non-decisional) The Applicant wants her Narrative Reason for Separation changed for employment purposes. ” 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...
NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1000154

Original file (ND1000154.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to:Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive:USNR (DEP)20071127 - 20080408Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Current Enlistment: 20080409Age at Enlistment:Period of Enlistment: YearsExtensionDate of Discharge:20090705Highest Rank/Rate:YNSNLength of Service: Year(s)Month(s)27 Day(s)Education Level:AFQT: 53EvaluationMarks:Performance:1.5(2)Behavior:2.5(2)OTA: 2.17Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):Pistol...
NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1201282

Original file (ND1201282.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The 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 for of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation, 1 specification) and Article 111(Drunken or reckless operation of vehicle, aircraft, or vessel, 1specification).The NDRB did not have the Applicant’s administrative...
NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0901719

Original file (ND0901719.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Based on the Applicant’s poor performance, substantial debt, and inability to obtain a security clearance, the NDRB determined he met the requirements for separation by reason of unsatisfactory performance and the awarded characterization of service was warranted.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...
NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1001081

Original file (ND1001081.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant submitted an application for rating conversion, but this request was disapproved by COMNAVPERSCOM, who then ordered his separation in accordance with Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 23, effective 19 May 2008 until 9 November 2009, Article 1910-156, SEPARATION BY REASON OF UNSATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE.The Applicant’s record does reflect an NJP for an unknown UCMJ violation four months after his second reenlistment, and the Board presumes that this...

Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1201393

Similar Decisions