Upgrade.Vet

NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1300383

Original file (ND1300383.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-HA, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20121211

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)        20080424 - 20080629     Active:

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20080630     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20101021      Highest Rank/Rate: HN
Length of Service: Y ear( s ) M onth( s ) 22 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 35
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: 3 .0 ( 4 )      Behavior: 2.3 ( 4 )        OTA: 2.79

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):

Periods of UA /C ONF :

NJP :

- 20090828 :      Article 108 (Military property - loss, damage, destruction, disposition , 2 specifications )
         Specification 1: B etween on or about 20090502 and 20090503, wrongfully disposed of by t aking U.S. military property ( 3 one liter bags of 0.9% sodium chloride injectable fluid, 3 intravenous fluid administration lines sets, and 3 intravenous administration catheters of a total value of about $ 15.30 ) without proper authority for her own personal use and thereafter doing the same.
         Specification 2: B etween on or about 20090521 and 20090523, wrongfully disposed of by taking U.S. military property (3 one liter bags of 0.9% sodium chloride injectable fluid, 3 intravenous fluid administration lines sets, and 3 intravenous administration catheters of a total value of about $ 15.30) without proper authority for her own personal use and thereafter doing the same.
         Article (Larceny, steal 3 one liter bags of sodium chloride injectable solution of a value of about $3.81 from U.S. Naval Hospital Okinawa Japan )
         Article (General A rticle, wrongfully received 1 Blackhawk Special Ops Medical Back Pack of a value of about $194.99, the propert y of Combat Logistics Regiment 3, knowing it had been stolen )
         Awarded:

- 20100722 :      Article (Failure to obey order, regulation , 3 specifications )
         Specification 1: Failure to obey lawful order issued by Commanding Officer, U.S . Naval Hospital Okinawa on diverse occasions, wrongfully having guests in her room past 2200.
         Specification 2: Failure to obey lawful order issued by Commanding Officer, U.S . Naval Hospital Okinawa on diverse occasions, wrongfully disrespecting the rights and privacy of her roommate.
         Specification 3 : Failure to obey lawful order issued by Commanding Officer, U.S . Naval Hospital Okinawa, wrongfully going off base liberty without signing out at the quarterdeck.
         Article (False official statements , made statement to superior officer about after hour visitation numbers with intent to deceive )
         Awarded : Susp ended: 6 months

S CM :    SPCM:    C C :

Retention Warning Counseling :

- 20090828 :       For m ilitary property - loss, damage, destruction, disposition, larceny, and wrongfully receiving property with the knowledge it had been stolen.

- 20100722 :       For failure to obey order or regulation and making a false official statement.

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

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

         “ HA ”
         “ E2 ”
         Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, should read:        “ NATIONAL DEFENSE SERVICE MEDAL; GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM SERVICE MEDAL; NAVY/MARINE CORPS OVERSEAS SERVICE RIBBON; LETTER OF APPRECIATION (2); CERTIFICATE OF    ACHIEVEMENT; CERTIFICATE OF APPRECIATION (2) ”
“ MILPERSMAN 1910-142 ”

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 17 August 2011, Article 1910-142, SEPARATION BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT - COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE.

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, 10 7 , 10 8 , 121, and 1 34 .

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

Applicant’s Issues

1.        The Applicant wants an upgrade to receive Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) education benefits and increase employment opportunities.
2.       The Applicant contends her in-service and post - service conduct warrant s an upgrade.

Decision

Date : 20 1 3 0905             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 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 NAVPERS 1070/613 (Page 13) warnings and for o f the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 108 ( Military property - loss, damage, destruction, disposition , 2 specifications) , Article 121 ( Larceny), Article 134 (General A rticle, wrongfully receiving stolen property) , Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation , 3 specifications), a nd Article 107 (False official statements ). Based on the offenses committed by the Applicant, 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 or submit a written statement . The Applicant was not entitled to an administrative separation board.

: (Nondecisional) The Applicant wants an upgrade to receive VA education benefits and increase employment opportunities. The 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. Also, t he NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment opportunities. Regulations limit the NDRB’s review to a determination of the propriety and equity of the discharge.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends her in-service and post - service conduct warrants an upgrade. The Applicant submitted four character reference letters and numerous letters of appreciation and achievement. However, during her enlistment, she received two retention warnings , was found guilty at two NJPs of violating numerous serious UCMJ articles , and had a below-average evaluation trait average . While this misconduct would typically have resulted in an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge, it was likely her in-service conduct that resulted in the lenient General discharge.

As for post-service conduct, t he 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, s he failed to provide any documentary evidence on h er 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 H onorable Conditions ) . 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 | 2006_Marine | MD0600330

Original file (MD0600330.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. ]950128: Counseling: Advised of deficiencies in performance and conduct (Found guilty at NJP on 950106 for Article 128. The Applicant admitted guilt to the following violations of the UCMJ, Article 134: Disobeying order to wit: soliciting a money pyramid.960507: SJA review determined the proceedings sufficient in law and fact.960510: GCMCA, Commanding General, 3d...
USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1101330

Original file (MD1101330.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. Paragraph 1105, DISCHARGE...
NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1101440

Original file (ND1101440.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant contends his undiagnosed medical conditions were contributing factors in his misconduct.After a complete review of the Applicant’s service and medical records and medical documentation provided by the Applicant, the NDRB could not determine if disorders diagnosed 8 years after his discharge had any bearing on his in-service misconduct that included three specifications of larceny. Relief denied.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the...
NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501262

Original file (ND0501262.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. ), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.950404: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 117: Wrongfully using provoking and reproachful words.Violation of UCMJ, Article 92 (2 specs) Specification 1: Fail to obey regulation – Wrongfully expose himself to alcohol under 20 yrs old...
USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0501492

Original file (MD0501492.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION Applicant chose not to make a statement.940526: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92 (2 specs): Specification 1: In that PFC C. R. B_(Applicant), did, at Bldg 217, Camp Foster, Okinawa, JA, at 0035, on or about 22 May 1994, fail to obey a lawful order, to wit: RegtO P11000.1 dtd 5 Sep 1989, by wrongfully escorting a female guest into the BEQ (Bldg 217) after visiting hours (2200). This conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the...
NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1300030

Original file (ND1300030.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. Additionally, the NDRB does not have the authority to change a narrative reason for separation to one indicating a medical disability or...
USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1001737

Original file (MD1001737.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The NDRB conducted a thorough review of the Applicant’s discharge under the pertinent standards of equity to determine if any factors in this particular case merited clemency. Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entries, the verbatim transcript record of trial by Special Court-Martial, and the discharge process, the NDRB determined that Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall BAD CONDUCT DISCHARGE...
USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0601106

Original file (MD0601106.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-LCPL, USMCMD06-01106Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request: Application Received: 20060815Narrative Reason for Separation: Character of Service:Discharge Authority: MARCORSEPMAN 6419Last Duty Assignment/Command at Discharge: 1 st marine corps districtApplicant’s Request:Narrative Reason change to: NONE REQUESTEDCharacterization change to:Review Requested:Representation: Decision: Date of Decision: 20070706 Location of Board: Washington D.C.Complete Service Record: YES Complete Medical...
USMC | DRB | 2015_Marine | MD1500426

Original file (MD1500426.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant’s record of service included 6105 counseling warnings; for of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 86 (Absence without leave), Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation; 2 specifications), and Article 107 (False official statements); and for of the UCMJ: Article 86 (Absence without leave; 3 specifications), Article 91 (Insubordinate conduct toward warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer; 2 specifications), Article 92 (Failure to obey...
NAVY | DRB | 2015_Navy | ND1501164

Original file (ND1501164.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall remain UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL) and the narrative reason for separation shall remain MISCONDUCT (SERIOUS OFFENSE). ” 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...

Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1300383

Similar Decisions