Upgrade.Vet

NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1300030

Original file (ND1300030.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-AR, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20121004

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)        20040518 - 20040721     Active:

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20040722     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20060210      Highest Rank/Rate: AA
Length of Service: Y ear( s ) M onth( s ) 19 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 39
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: 2.0 ( 2 )      Behavior: 1.5 ( 2 )        OTA: 1.84
Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):

Periods of C ONF :

NJP :
- 20050920 :      Article (Absence without leave)
         Article (Failure to obey order or regulation)
         Awarded: Suspended:

- 20060104 :      Article (Absence without leave , 20051118 - 20051215, 27 days )
         Article (Failure to obey order or regulation)
         Awarded : Susp ended:

S CM :    SPCM:    C C :

Retention Warning Counseling :
- 20050929 :       For violation of the UCMJ, Article 86 (Absence without leave), Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation) (4 specifications), and Article 121 (Larceny and wrongful appropriation). On or about 20050212, at or near NAS Lemoore, California, without authority, you failed to go at the prescribed time, to your place of duty, to wit: Line Division, VFA-125. On or about 20050627, at or near the field adjacent to barracks 10 and 11 east parking lot, NASL, you failed to obey a lawful general order, by wrongfully consuming alcoholic beverages while under the age of 21 . On or about 20050518, at or near NAS Lemoore, California, having knowledge of a lawful order issued by AZC ______, U.S. Navy not to get any new tattoos on your arms, an order which it was your duty to obey, you failed to obey the same by wrongfully getting a new tattoo on your arm. On or about 20050620, at or near NAS Lemoore, you failed to obey a lawful general order, to wit: paragraph 6, Navy Uniform Regulation Manual (NAVPERS 15665I), by wrongfully wearing a barbell stud in your tongue while in uniform. On or about 20050622, having knowledge of a lawful order issued by AT1 _____, U.S. Navy, to comply with the order given by ABE2 ______, U.S. Navy, and BM2 ______, U.S. Navy to move from assigned barracks room, room #119 to room #307, an order which it was your duty to obey, you did, at or near NAS Lemoore, fail to obey the same by wrongfully not moving from your assigned room, room #119 to room #307, and on or about 20050526, at near NAS Lemoore, you wrongfully appropriated a vehicle, of a value of more that $500.00, the property of AOAN Gertz, U.S. Navy.

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 11, effective 26 April 2005 until 19 May 2008, 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 wants to be eligible for Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical benefits.
2.       The Applicant contends her discharge was too harsh.

Decision

Date : 20 1 3 0620    Location: Washington D.C .       R epresentation : AZ Dept of vet svcs

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. 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 86 ( Absence without leave , 2 specifications) and Article 92 ( Failure to obey order or regulation , 2 specifications ). Based on the offenses committed by the Applicant, command administratively processed for separation. When notified of administrative separation processing using the procedure, the Applicant waived rights to consult with a qualified counsel, submit a written statement, and request an administrative board .

: (Nondecisional) The Applicant wants to be eligible for VA medical benefits. There is no requirement, or law, that grants re-characterization solely on the issue of facilitating access to VA benefits. Additionally, the NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing educational opportunities or employment opportunities. Regulations limit the NDRB’s review solely to a determination of the propriety and the equity of a discharge. As such, this issue does not serve to provide a foundation upon which the NDRB can grant relief.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends her discharge was too harsh. The NDRB reviews the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge individually, on a case-by-case basis. If such a review reveals an impropriety or inequity, relief is in order. Regulations permit relief on equitable grounds if the Applicant’s discharge is inconsistent with standards of discipline of the Naval Service. Based upon available records, nothing indicates that the Applicant’s discharge was in any way inconsistent with the standards of discipline in the United States Navy. A preponderance of the evidence reviewed supports the conclusion that the Applicant committed violations of Article 86 by once absenting herself from her place of duty and again for absence without leave for 27 days. She was also found guilty of violations of Article 92 by failing to obey orders or regulations by drinking alcohol under the age of 21, by getting a new tattoo on her arm, by wrongfully wearing a barbell stud in her tongue while in uniform, by not moving from her barracks room after she was ordered to do so , and by wrongfully appropriating another service member’s vehicle. The Applicant waived her right to have an administrative separation board to hear her case, thus accepting the recommended characterization of service U nder Other Than Honorable Conditions. The NDRB determined her discharge was proper and equitable, and her characterization of service was warranted by her misconduct. 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 | 1999_Navy | ND99-01175

Original file (ND99-01175.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

No indication of appeal in the record.901029: Naval Hospital Lemoore, CA: S: 3 rd referral for ETOH - feels he failed level II. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 910426 under honorable conditions (general) due to alcohol abuse - rehabilitation failure (A). At this time, the applicant has not provided any documentation of good character and conduct.
USMC | DRB | 2014_Marine | MD1400005

Original file (MD1400005.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/To Congress member: Pertinent Regulation/Law A. Paragraph 6210,...
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...
NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01223

Original file (ND03-01223.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. Award: Forfeiture of $552 per month for 2 months, restriction for 60 days, reduction to AMAR No indication of appeal in the record.020828: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.020828: Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to...
USMC | DRB | 2014_Marine | MD1401140

Original file (MD1401140.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

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 , . 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...
USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1002024

Original file (MD1002024.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to: Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive:USMCR (DEP)20060628 - 20070603Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Current Enlistment: 20070604Age at Enlistment: Period of Enlistment: Years MonthsDate of Discharge:20080212Highest Rank:Length of Service: Year(s)Month(s)08 Day(s)Education Level: AFQT:74MOS: 6256Proficiency/Conduct Marks (# of occasions):()/()Fitness Reports: Awards and Decorations (per DD...
NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1000172

Original file (ND1000172.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.Nondecisional issues:(1) Applicant seeks relief in the form of an upgrade in discharge characterization of service in order to obtain Montgomery G.I. This issue does not serve to provide a foundation upon which the Board can grant relief; there is no requirement or law that grants the NDRB the authority to re-characterize discharges based solely on the issue of obtaining...
USMC | DRB | 2013_Marine | MD1301374

Original file (MD1301374.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

After a thorough review of the Applicant’s service and medical records and documentation submitted by the Applicant, the NDRB determined PTSD did not mitigate his misconduct and clemency is not 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...
USMC | DRB | 2012_Marine | MD1201468

Original file (MD1201468.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to: Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive:USMCR (DEP)20061117 - 20070123Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Current Enlistment: 20070124Age at Enlistment: Period of Enlistment: Years MonthsDate of Discharge:20090520Highest Rank:Length of Service: Year(s)Month(s)27 Day(s)Education Level: AFQT:44MOS: 0151Proficiency/Conduct Marks (# of occasions):()/()Fitness Reports: Awards and Decorations (per DD...
USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1001490

Original file (MD1001490.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Given the unique circumstances involved in the Applicant’s individual case, the traumatic impact of documented, personalevents that occurred in Iraq, and the timing of the discharge in relation to the misconduct of record, the NDRB determined that the discharge, as awarded, was inequitable.In accordance with the MARCORSEPMAN, 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...

Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1300030

Similar Decisions