Upgrade.Vet

NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1300553

Original file (ND1300553.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-AEAA, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20130125

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)        20040921 - 20050609     Active:

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 200 50610     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20070126      Highest Rank/Rate: AEAN
Length of Service: Y ear( s ) M onth( s ) 16 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 86
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: 3.0 ( 3 )      Behavior: 1.6 ( 3 )        OTA: 2.78

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      Pistol

Periods of UA /C ONF :

NJP :
- 200607 13 :      Article (Failure to obey order or regulation , to wit: SECNAVINST 5300.28D, paragraph 5C, by the unlawful use of chemical (chemicals wrongfully used as inhalants) with the intent to induce intoxication, excitement, or stupefaction of the central nervous system)
         Awarded: Suspended:

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

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 11 June 2008, 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 92.

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

Applicant’s Issues

1.        The Applicant wants an upgrade for better employment opportunities.
2.       The Applicant contends his misconduct was the result of joking around with fellow shipmates , and he did not intend to inhale for the intoxicating effect.
3.       The Applicant contends his post-service conduct warrants consideration for an upgrade.

Decision

Date : 20 1 3 092 4             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 propri ety. The Applicant’s record of service included for o f the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 92 ( Failure to obey order or regulation , 1 specification). Based on the offense committed by the Applicant, command administratively processed for separation. When notified of administrative separation processing using the procedure, the Applicant exercised rights to consult with a qualified counsel, submit a written statement, and request an administrative board . The Applicant was also arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol prior to his administrative board. On 4 November 2006, a n a dministrative separation b oard convened and voted 3-0 that a preponderance of the evidence supported the Applicant committ ing a serious offense, that he should be separated with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge, but that his separation should be suspended for 12 months. The Separati on Authority agreed with the b oard’s conclusions except for the suspended separation and ordered the Applicant to be administratively separated on 26 January 2007 with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) characterization .

: (Nondecisional) The Applicant wants an upgrade for better employment 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.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends his misconduct was the result of joking around with fellow shipmates, and he did not intend to inhale for the intoxicating effect. “Huffing” compressed air with the intention of getting high is a violation of SECNAVINST 5300.28D (Military Substance Abuse Prevention and Control) and requires mandatory processing for administrative separation. Although the Applicant contends he did not intend to get high , an a dministrative separation b oard heard his defense arguments and determined he should be administratively separated. An administrative board only requires that a preponderance of the evidence supports a finding of misconduct to recommend separation. The Separati on Authority gave full consideration to the Applicant’s defense but determined he should be separated for Misconduct (Serious Offense). The NDRB determined the Applicant’s discharge was proper and equitable. Relief denied.

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.

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 | 2009_Marine | MD0902547

Original file (MD0902547.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. 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 the discharge was improper and inequitable.Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall and the narrative reason for separation shall change to SECRETARIAL AUTHORITY.The Applicant remains eligible for a...
USMC | DRB | 2014_Marine | MD1400970

Original file (MD1400970.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The notification letter specifically states, “The factual basis for the recommendation of drug abuse is your wrongful possession of designer drug ‘Spice’ on or about 3 June 2010.” The record clearly shows the Applicant exercised his right to counsel and waived his rights to submit a written statement and request an administrative board. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application...
NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1100693

Original file (ND1100693.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The board had no dissenting opinion in this case.On 26 March 2007, after receiving and reviewing the typed record of proceedings of the administrative board, the Applicant’s Commanding Officer forwarded the findings of the board to the Separation Authority via the chain of command as required by Article 1910-704 of the MILPERSMAN. The Separation Authority determined that the evidence of record supported the basis for discharge and that the characterization of service,Under Other Than...
NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1200826

Original file (ND1200826.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 | 2013_Navy | ND1301612

Original file (ND1301612.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Board determined the characterization of service received was appropriate considering the length of service and UCMJ violations. 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 remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing for 15...
USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1101551

Original file (MD1101551.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. The NDRB determined that relief based on this issue 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.
NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1201183

Original file (ND1201183.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

In carefully reviewing the Applicant’s service record, the NDRB determined the Separation Authority (Commander, Navy Personnel Command)eventually ordered in a message dated 22 December 2006 that the Applicant be separated for Misconduct (Drug Abuse)with a characterization of service of General (Under Honorable Conditions) after it reviewed the facts of the case and the proceedings of the administrative separation board. As the Separation Authority is the sole authority to determine...
USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0902201

Original file (MD0902201.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: Substance Abuse: Criminal Records: Family/Personal Status: Community Service: References: Additional Statements:From Applicant:From Representation:From Congress member:Other Documentation: Pertinent Regulation/Law A. Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to...
USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0902111

Original file (MD0902111.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

However, the Board did complete a thorough review of the circumstances which led to discharge and the discharge process to ensure the pertinent standards of equity and propriety were met.The Applicant’s record of service included 6105 counseling warnings, for of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article (Unauthorized absence, : 30 minutes), Article (Failure to obey an order or regulation, ), and Article (Larceny, ).The Applicant a pre-service drug waiver. Regulations limit the...
USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1101332

Original file (MD1101332.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

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 remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing for a period of fifteen years from the date of discharge. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are...

Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1300553

Similar Decisions