Upgrade.Vet

NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1301532

Original file (ND1301532.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-AA, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20130724

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)        19990803 - 19990908     Active:

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 19990909     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20020419      Highest Rank/Rate: AN
Length of Service: Year(s) Month(s) 11 D ay(s)
Education Level:        AFQT: 33
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: 3.0 ( 3 )      Behavior: 2.7 ( 3 )        OTA: 2.94

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):

Periods of UA: 0700, 20001231 - 0710, 20010105 , 5 days ; 0645, 20010529 - 0700, 20010530, 1 day

NJP :

- 20000715 :      Article (Absence without leave , u nauthorized absence from 20000605 - 20000626, 21 days)
         Awarded: Suspended:

- 20020321 :      Article (Absence without leave , did on or about 20020305, without authority, absent himself fr om his organization, to wit: Naval Aviation Schools Command and did remain so absent until on or about 20020311, 6 days.)
         Awarded: Suspended:

S CM :

- 20001206 :      Article (Absence without leave , 2 specifications )
         Specification 1: 0700, 20000821 - 0525, 20001103, 74 days
         Specification 2: 0700, 20001107 - 0700, 20001116, 9 days
         Article (Missing m ovement , 4 s pecifications )
         Specification 1: 20000906
         Specification 2: 20000920
         Specification 3: 20000926
         Specification 4: 20000929
         Sentence: (20001206-2001230, 24 days)

SPCM:    C C :

Retention Warning Counseling:

- 20000717 :      For Article 86 (Absence without leave)

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

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

         “ 02 03 16 ”
         “ 00JUN05 TO 00JUN26; 00AUG21 TO 00NOV03; 00NOV07 TO 00NOV16; 00DEC31 TO 01JAN05; 01MAY29 TO 01MAY30; 02MAR05 TO 02MAR11 ”

The NDRB will recommend to the Commander, Navy Personnel Command, PERS-312A, 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:                  Other Documentation:
                  Additional Statements:
         From Applicant:          From/To Representation:          From/To Congress member:

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 22, effective 15 December 1998 until 21 August 2002, 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 seeks an upgrade to increase employment opportunities and contends it has been 10 years since his discharge .
2.       The Applicant contends he was made an example of in front of future Sailors, and all he did was check in at the wrong side of the base. He contends the oversight was going to be forgotten, but then a Lieutenant saw that the Applicant was in trouble at his previous command and had him discharged and ruined his life because of 3 days of unauthorized leave.

Decision

Date: 20 1 4 0220             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 . 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) warning, for o f the Uniform Code of Mil itary Justice (UCMJ): Article 86 ( Absence without leave, 2 specifications , 21 days and 6 days ) , and for of the UCMJ: Article 86 ( Absence without leave, 2 specifications , 74 days and 9 days ) and Article 87 (Missing movement, 4 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 and submit a written statement.

: (Nondecisional) The Applicant seeks an upgrade to increase employment opportunities and contends it has been 10 years since his discharge . T he NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment opportunities. Also, upgrades are not granted based on a certain period of time elapsing after discharge. Regulations limit the NDRB’s review to a determination of the propriety and equity of the discharge.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends he was made an example of in front of future Sailors, and all he did was check in at the wrong side of the base. He contends the oversight was going to be forgotten, but then a Lieutenant saw that the Applicant was in trouble at his previous command and had him discharged and ruined his life because of 3 days of unauthorized leave. During the Applicant’s 2 years and 7 months of service, he received a retention warning and was found guilty at two NJPs and a Summary Court-Martial of 4 violations of UCMJ Article 87 (Missing movement) and 4 violations of UCMJ Article 86 (Absence without leave) where he had a total of 111 days being absent without leave. The 74-day period of unauthorized absence typically would have resulted in a Special Court-Martial and a fine, confinement, and a punitive Bad Conduct Discharge. With his other UCMJ violations, he met the requirements to be administratively separated for Misconduct (Serious Offense) and Misconduct (Pattern of Misconduct) and warranted an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge. It is unclear why the Applicant’s command was so lenient in only recommending a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge. In any event, the NDRB is not authorized to change a discharge characterization of servic e to a more unfavorable level. T he NDRB determined his General discharge for a Pattern of Misconduct 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

USMC | DRB | 2014_Marine | MD1400127

Original file (MD1400127.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant’s service record documents a punitive conviction and punishment, as adjudged by a Special Court-Martial, on 2 May 2001. ” 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 | 2009_Marine | MD0900361

Original file (MD0900361.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.Reenlistment opportunity. The NDRB determined clemency was not warranted.After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Service Record Entries, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found clemency was not warranted and the sentence awarded the Applicant at his court-martial was appropriate for the...
NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1200271

Original file (ND1200271.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. Relief denied.Summary: After...
USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1000237

Original file (MD1000237.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...
USMC | DRB | 2015_Marine | MD1500349

Original file (MD1500349.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

There is no indication in the evidence of record or in the documentation submitted by the Applicant that the Applicant was recommended for or processed for a medical board by proper authority. ” 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...
NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1001514

Original file (ND1001514.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.Applicant seeks a discharge upgrade to obtain veteran education benefits.2. Relief denied.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entries and the administrative separation process, the Board found Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall and the narrative reason for separation shall remain...
NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1301823

Original file (ND1301823.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. Post-Service Conduct : The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge.
USMC | DRB | 2013_Marine | MD1301519

Original file (MD1301519.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant contends his performance warrants consideration for a change to Honorable or Uncharacterized.During the Applicant’s less than two years of service, he received two retention warnings and was found guilty at three NJPs and a Summary Court-Martial of violating several UCMJ articles. 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...
USMC | DRB | 2012_Marine | MD1200007

Original file (MD1200007.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to: Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive:USMCR (DEP)20070831 - 20071112Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Current Enlistment: 20071113Age at Enlistment: Period of Enlistment: Years MonthsDate of Discharge:20091013Highest Rank: Length of Service: Year(s)Month(s)16 Day(s)Education Level: AFQT:51MOS: 0331Proficiency/Conduct Marks (# of occasions):2.5(6)/2.1(6)Fitness Reports: Awards and Decorations (per...
NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1200921

Original file (ND1200921.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant provided no additional documentation for the NDRB’s consideration or to rebut the Government’s presumption of regularity that was not already documented in his official military record of service and medical record.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. Relief denied.Summary: After a thorough review of the...

Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1301532

Similar Decisions