Upgrade.Vet

NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1300351

Original file (ND1300351.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-LT, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20121204

Characterization of Service Received:

Narrative Reason for Discharge:
Authority for Discharge: SECNAVINST 1920.6C

Applicant’s Request:      Characterization change to:
         Narrative Reason change to:

Summary of Service
Prior Service:
Inactive: USN ( DEP ) 1988122 8 - 19890217 Active: 19920414 - 19990520

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Appointment : 19990521     Age: 32
Years Contracted: Indefinite
Date of Discharge: 20080630                Highest Rank : LT
Length of Service: Year s Month 10 Days
Education Level:         AFQT: 72
Officer’s Fitness reports: Available

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      Pistol (2) (2) (2) NEM (2) (5) (3) (2) ESWS EAWS

Periods of UA /C ONF :

G CM:

- 20070831 :       Art icle (Failure to obey a law or order )
         Article 133 (Conduct unbecoming an officer)
         Art icle (General Article, fraternization/indecent assault)
         Sentence : 180 days

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 920414 UNTIL 9905 20 ”
         “ SECNAV INST 1920.6C ”

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 :

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB)
DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT

Applicant’s Issues

1.        The Applicant contends his record of service warrants an upgrade .
2.       The Applicant contends his post-service conduct warrants consideration for an upgrade.

Decision

Date : 20 1 3 0829             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 governmental 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 G eneral C ourt- M artial (GCM) for o f the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation) , Article 133 (Conduct unbecoming an officer), and Article (General Article, fraternization/indecent assault) . The Applicant’s service record documents a punitive conviction and punishment, as adjudged by a General Court-Martial, on 31 August 2007. A qualified legal defense counsel represented the Applicant throughout the trial by General Court-Martial process. Given the facts of the case, the General Court-Martial awarded the Applicant a reprimand and confinement for a period of 180 days. Based on the offense committed by the Applicant, he was ordered to show cause for retention in the United States Na vy. The Applicant acknowledged his rights and chose not to tender a resignation, but to submit a statement in his own defense and to app ear before a Board of Inquiry (BOI) on 19 February 2008. The BOI voted 3-0 that the Applicant was guilty of violating Articles 92, 133, and 134 as evidence d by the records of the GCM; voted 3-0 that the Applicant failed to conform to prescribed standards of military deportment; voted 3-0 that the Applicant failed to demonstrate acceptable qualities of leadership required of an officer in his grade; and voted 3-0 to separate the Applicant Under Other Than Honorable Conditions. The Secretary of the Navy approved the Applicant’s administrative separation , and the Applicant was discharged on 30 June 2008.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends his record of service warrants an upgrade. Despite a servicemember’s prior record of service, certain serious offenses warrant separation from the to maintain proper order and discipline. Violation of Article s 92 , 133, and 134 are offenses that warrant processing for administrative separation regardless of grade, performance, awards, 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 S pecial or G eneral C ourt- M artial. The Applicant’s service record documents a punitive conviction and punishment, as adjudged by a General Court-Martial, on 31 August 2007 for violation of UCMJ Articles 92, 133, and 134. As a result, t he Applicant was forced to show cause at a BOI on 19 February 2008. The BOI voted that the Applicant was guilty of violating Articles 92, 133, and 134 and should be separated Under Other Than Honorable Conditions. The Secretary of the Navy approved the Applicant’s administrative separation. By a vote of 4-1, the NDRB determined t he Applicant’s characterization of service was equitable and consistent with the characterization of discharge given others in similar circumstances. Relief denied.

Issue 2: (Decisional) (Equity) RELIEF NOT WARRANTED. The Applicant contends his post-service conduct warrants 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 an academic transcript that shows he has been awarded a doctorate degree. T he NDRB determined the characterization of service received was appropriate considering the length of service and UCMJ violations. Relief denied.

S ummary: 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.

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 1920.6C (ADMINISTRATIVE SEPARATION OF OFFICERS), effective 15 December 2005 until Present, establishes policies, standards and procedures for the administrative separation of Navy and Marine Corps officers from the naval service in accordance with Title 10, United States Code and DoD Directive 1332.30 of 14 March 1997.

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 s 92 , 133, and 134 .

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 | 2010_Marine | MD1002039

Original file (MD1002039.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: Pertinent Regulation/Law A.Secretary of the Navy...
USMC | DRB | 2014_Marine | MD1400149

Original file (MD1400149.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

There is no evidence in the Applicant’s record, nor did he provide evidence to the NDRB, that the Applicant sought medical or psychiatric help for PTSD symptoms in the years between his Iraq deployment in 2003 and his misconduct on 1 March 2012. 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...
USMC | DRB | 2012_Marine | MD1201872

Original file (MD1201872.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. Additionally, the NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities.
USMC | DRB | 2013_Marine | MD1301515

Original file (MD1301515.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: DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD...
NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1200814

Original file (ND1200814.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Accordingly, the NDRB found the Applicant’s issue to be without merit and did not provide a basis for relief. 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 is not eligible for any further reviews from the NDRB. ” Additional Reviews : After...
NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1201619

Original file (ND1201619.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to:Narrative Reason change to: Summary of ServicePrior Service: Inactive: USN (DEP) 19970916 - 19980513 Active: 19980514 - 20011114 HON USN 20011115 - 20061215 HON Period of Service Under Review: Date of Appointment: 20061216Age: 30Years Contracted: Indefinite Date of Discharge: 20120531 Highest Rank: LTLength of Service: Year(s) Month(s) 16 Day(s) Education Level: AFQT: 97Officer’s Fitness reports: AvailableAwards and Decorations (per DD...
NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0902629

Original file (ND0902629.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: DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD...
NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1300575

Original file (ND1300575.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to:Narrative Reason change to: Summary of ServicePrior Service: Inactive: NONE Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Appointment: 20051221Age: 27Years Contracted: Indefinite Date of Discharge: 20110430 Highest Rank: LIEUTENANTLength of Service: Year(s) Month(s) 10 Day(s) Education Level: Officer’s Fitness reports: AvailableAwards and Decorations (per DD 214):Periods of UA/CONF: NJP:- 20100526: Article (Failure to obey order or...
USMC | DRB | 2013_Marine | MD1301696

Original file (MD1301696.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The NDRB is charged with reviewing the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge and is authorized to change the characterization of service and the reason for discharge if such change is 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...
NAVY | DRB | 2015_Navy | ND1500035

Original file (ND1500035.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...

Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1300351

Similar Decisions