Upgrade.Vet

NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1201849

Original file (ND1201849.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-EMFA, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20120905

Characterization of Service Received:

Narrative Reason for Discharge:
Authority for Discharge: MILPERSMAN

Applicant’s Request:      Characterization change to:
         Reentry Code change to:

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive:         US N R (DEP)        19960415 - 19970112     Active:

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 19970113     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20001228      Highest Rank/Rate: EMFN
Length of Service: Y ear s M onth s 16 D a ys
Education Level:        AFQT: 50
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: NFIR         Behavior: NFIR OTA: NFIR

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      AFEM SSDR

Pe riods of UA: 19970506, 1 day; 19970811, 1 day; 19970910, 1 day; 19980212 - 19980217, 5 days; 19981016 - 1998101 8 , 3 days / C ONF :

NJP :

- 19980319 :      Article (Absence without leave, 19980212 - 19980217, 5 days)
         Article (Failure to obey order or regulation, on or about 19980123, violate a General Order)
         Awarded: CCU Suspended:

- 19981103 :      Article (Absence without leave)
         Article (Missing movement)
         Article (Failure to obey order or regulation)
         Article (Assault)
         Article (General A rticle)
         Awarded : Susp ended:

- 19990520 :      Article (Assault)
         Article ( G eneral A rticle)
         Awarded: Suspended:

- 20000412 :      Article (Absence without leave , 2 specifications )
         Article (Assault)
         Article (General A rticle - disorderly conduct, drunkenness)
         Awarded : Susp ended:

- 20000519 :      Article (Absence without leave , 2 specifications )
         Article (Insubordinate conduct toward warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer , 2 specifications )
         Awarded: Suspended:

S CM :          SPCM:          C C :

Retention Warning Counseling :

- 19980319 :       For violation of Article 86, Uniform Code of Military Justice, in that you did on or about 19980212 absent yourself from your unit until on or about 19980217; violation of Article 92, Uniform Code of Military Justice, in that you did on or about 19980123 violate a lawful general order by letting a civilian into a controlled area.

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

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

         “ EMFA ”
         “ E2 ”

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. Navy Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 27 effective 27 March 2000 until 7 May 2001, Article 1910-104, SEPARATION BY REASON OF EXPIRATION OF ACTIVE OBLIGATED SERVICE (EAOS).

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 request s an upgrade to receive G.I. Bill benefits.
2.       The Applicant requests an upgrade to enlist in the National Guard.
3.       The Applicant contends his post-service conduct warrants consideration for an upgrade.
4 .       The Applicant contends there is a contradiction between his Character of Service, S eparation C ode, and R eenlistment C ode on his DD Form 214 .
Decision

Date: 20 1 3 0606             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. 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 NAVPERS 1070/613 (Page 13) warning and for o f the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article (Absence without leave, 6 specifications ) , Article (Missing movement) , Article 91 (Insubordinate conduct toward warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer, 2 specifications) , Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation) , Article 128 (Assault, 2 specifications), and Article 134 (General A rticle - disorderly conduct, drunkenness, 2 specifications ) . Despite the Applicant’s frequent and serious misconduct, his command allowed him to continue to serve until the end of his active obligated service. Due to his poor evaluation overall trait average, he was discharged with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) characterization of service for Completion of Required Active Service.

: (Nondecisional) The Applicant request s an upgrade to receive G.I. Bill 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.

: (Nondecisional) The Applicant requests an upgrade to enlist in the National Guard. 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 B oard for Correction of Naval Records 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.

Issue 3: (Decisional) (Equity) RELIEF NOT WARRANTED. The Applicant contends his post-service conduct warrants consideration for an upgrade. 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 General (Under Honorable Conditions). Relief denied.

Issue 4 : (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends there is a contradiction between his Character of Service, S eparation Code, and R eenlistment C ode on his DD Form 214 . The Applicant was separated at the completion of his required active service in the United States Navy with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge. In accordance with Naval Military Personnel Manual (MILPERSMAN) Article 1910-104, a member separated upon expiration of enlistment or fulfillment of service obligation is eligible for a characterization of Honorable, unless a General is warranted , on the basis of the Enlisted Performance Evaluation System. If during the current enlistment, the servicemember’s evaluation overall trait average is 2.49 or below, then it is appropriate to receive a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge. The NDRB was unable to determine the Applicant’s evaluation overall trait average due to his evaluation marks not being found in his service record . However, t he NDRB presumes regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs in the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary. The Board presumed he did not have the required evaluation overall trait average in light of his retention warning and five NJP s during his enlistment. The Applicant did not submit any documentation to rebut any presumption of regularity in governmental affairs by the NDRB. Therefore, the Character of Service of General (Under Honorable Conditions) is correct as is the Narrative Reason for Separation of Completion of Required Active Service . As for the S eparation Code and R eenlistment C ode, the NDRB noted no discrepancies. Per MILPERSMAN Article 1910-104, t he S eparation C ode of MBK is proper and indicates “v oluntary release or transfer to another service .” The Separation Authority assigned a Reenlistment Code of RE-4 (Ineligible for reenlistment) due to his frequent and serious misconduct during his enlistment and no desire on the part of the Navy to have him continue in service. While the Applicant may have been asked if he wanted to apply for reenlistment at the end of his first enlistment, this was not a guaranteed offer. With his record of service, it is unlikely he would have been approved to reenlist. The NDRB did note additional errors on his DD Form 214 and DD Form 215. The NDRB will ask Navy Personnel Command to change his discharge rate and paygrade to EMFA and E-2 to align with his service record . The NDRB determined the Applicant’s disch arge was proper and equitable. 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 | 2012_Navy | ND1200291

Original file (ND1200291.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Per Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), re-issued October 2002, effective 22 August 2002 until 25 April 2005, Article 1910-140, SEPARATION BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT - PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, the Separation Code for a service member not entitled to an administrative board is JKA. The NDRB will recommend to the Commander, Navy Personnel Command that this change be made to his DD Form 214.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary...
NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1201928

Original file (ND1201928.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Representation: By a vote of the Characterization shall .By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall REDUCTION IN FORCE.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...
USMC | DRB | 2014_Marine | MD1400234

Original file (MD1400234.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant’s administrative separation package, which included his qualified resignation request, was properly submitted up the Applicant’s chain of command and was approved by the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower & Reserve Affairs) with a narrative reason of Unacceptable Conduct and a corresponding Separation Code of BNC1.The Applicant submitted a request for a qualified resignation, and the Separation Code FND applies only to unqualified resignations. Relief denied.Summary:...
USMC | DRB | 2014_Marine | MD1400590

Original file (MD1400590.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Per applicable regulations, the Narrative Reason for Separation for a Separation Code of RNC1 is “Unacceptable Conduct. After a complete review of the records, the NDRB determined the Applicant received full due process, his discharge was warranted and very equitable with an Honorable characterization of service, and a change to the Narrative Reason for Separation is not warranted. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal...
NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1300465

Original file (ND1300465.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant contends his Separation Code should be JBK vice JGH. There is nothing in the service record to refute the presumption that the Separation Code of JGH or the narrative reason of Non-Retention on Active Duty were inappropriate, and the documentation submitted by the Applicant does not show that his Separation Code and narrative reason were incorrect. ” Additional...
NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1100880

Original file (ND1100880.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. 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. Additionally, the NDRB has no authority to upgrade a...
NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1101308

Original file (ND1101308.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Narrative Reason for Discharge:Authority for Discharge:MILPERSMAN3620225 [PERSONALITY DISORDER] DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant contends she received an improper “ RE ” code and request it be changed. ” 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...
NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1201259

Original file (ND1201259.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to:Narrative Reason change to:CONDITION INTERFERES WITH DUTY Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive:USNR (DEP)20020423 - 20021209Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Current Enlistment: 20021210Age at Enlistment: Period of Enlistment: YearsExtensionDate of Discharge:20040525Highest Rank/Rate: SNLength of Service: Year(s) Month(s) 16 Day(s)Education Level:AFQT: 62EvaluationMarks:Performance:3.0(1)Behavior:1.0(1)OTA: 2.50Awards and...
NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1301364

Original file (ND1301364.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Representation: 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 | 2014_Navy | ND1400584

Original file (ND1400584.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant’s command processed him for administrative separation due to Condition, Not a Disability. ” 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 does not have the authority to change a narrative reason for separation to one indicating a medical disability or other medical...

Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1201849

Similar Decisions