Upgrade.Vet

NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1301760

Original file (ND1301760.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-AR, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20130830

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)        20000406 - 20000410     Active:

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20000411     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20040130      Highest Rank/Rate: AA
Length of Service: Year(s) Month(s) 20 D ay(s)
Education Level:        AFQT: 43/49
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: 2.0 ( 1 )      Behavior: 1.0 ( 1 )        OTA: 1.83

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      NONE

Periods of UA : 20001117-200011 1 9, 3 days ; 20010809-20010814, 5 days

NJP :     CC:      Retention Warning Counseling:

S CM :

- 20010509 :      Article (Absence without leave , 3 specifications )
         Specification 1: 20010309-20010312, 3 days
         Specification 2: 20010317-20010329, 1 3 days
         Specification 3: 2001040 4 -20010405, 1 day
         Article 91: (Insubordinate conduct toward warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer)
         Sentence:

SPCM:

- 20020306 :      Article (Absence without leave , 20011105-20020111, 67 days )
         Article 89 (Disrespect toward a superior commissioned officer)
         Article 112a (Wrongful use, possession, etc., of controlled substance, marijuana )
         Article (General A rticle, impersonate commissioned officer)
         Sentence: CONF 15 0 days (Pre-trial: 20020111-20020306 , 54 days) (CONF: 20020306-20020412 , 37 days)

NDRB Documentary Review Conducted (date):        20070719
NDRB Documentary Review Docket Number:   ND06-01114
NDRB Documentary Review Findings:                 Proper as issued and that no change is warranted.

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. The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), re-issued October 2002, effective 22 August 2002 until 8 September 2004, Article 5815-010, Executing a Dishonorable or Bad Conduct Discharge.

B. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part IV, Para 403m(7)(a), Presumption Concerning Court-Martial Specifications .

C . 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 employment in law enforcement.
2.       The Applicant contends his discharge is too harsh.

Decision

Date: 20 1 4 0514             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. With respect to a discharge adjudged by a court-martial case, 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. In response to the Applicant’s clemency request, relevant and material facts stated in a court-martial specification are presumed by the NDRB to be established facts. The Applicant’s case was considered under the pertinent standards of equity to determine if any factors in this particular case merited clemency. The Applicant’s record of service included for of the UCMJ: Article 86 (Absence without leave, 3 specifications , 3 days, 13 days, and 1 day ) and Article 91 (Insubordinate conduct toward warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer) and for of the UCMJ: Article 86 (Absence without leave , 67 days), Article 89 (Disrespect toward a superior commissioned officer), Article 112a (Wrongful use, possession, etc., of controlled substance, marijuana), and Article 134 (General A rticle, impersonate commissioned officer). The Applicant’s service record documents a punitive conviction and punishment, as adjudged by a Special Court-Martial, on 0 6 March 200 2 . A qualified legal defense counsel represented the Applicant throughout the trial by Special Court-Martial process. Given the facts of the case, the Special Court-Martial awarded the Applicant a Bad Conduct Discharge and confinement for a period of 1 5 0 days , limited to 110 days per the pre-trial agreement . The case was submitted for review to the U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals; it was reviewed and the findings were affirmed on 19 August 200 3 . Subsequently, the Navy Marine Corps Appellate Leave Activity ordered the Bad Conduct Discharge executed.

: (Nondecisional) The Applicant seeks employment in law enforcement. 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 discharge is too harsh. The Applicant pled guilty at a Special Court-Martial to violating Article 86 (Absence without leave for 67 days), Article 89 (Disrespect toward a superior commissioned officer), Article 112a (Wrongful use, possession, etc., of controlled substance, marijuana), and Article 134 (General A rticle, impersonate commissioned officer). Per the Manual for Courts-Martial, each of these violations would warrant a punitive discharge on their own merit. Given the facts of the case, his case was reviewed by the U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals where the findings were affirmed . After considering the testimony from the Applicant and the facts and circumstances of the case, the NDRB determined clemency was not warranted. Clemency 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 may petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records, 701 South Courthouse Road, Suite 1001, Arlington, VA 22204-2490 for any further reviews or issues. Their website is http://www.donhq.navy.mil/bcnr/bcnr.htm . 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 | 2006_Navy | ND0601114

Original file (ND0601114.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Elements of Discharge: [BAD CONDUCT DISCHARGE] Record of Trial Complete: Date Charges Preferred: 20020120, 20020203, 20020301Charge(s) and Specification(s): I: Article 86: 6 specifications of absence from unit or failing to go to place of duty, various dates II: Article 95: 20020111, resistapprehension III: Article 109: 20011027, Wrongfully damaging property of another by slashing 4 tires IV: Article 134: 3 specifications of impersonating a commissioned officer; 2 specifications of...
NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1201664

Original file (ND1201664.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant could have provided documentation as detailed in the Post-Service Conduct paragraph in the Addendum , however, 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. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal...
USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0900749

Original file (MD0900749.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. The NDRB determined clemency was not warranted.After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Service and Medical 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 offenses he...
USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0902574

Original file (MD0902574.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

After a thorough review of the Applicant’s record, issues submitted, and post-service accomplishments, the Board determined that clemency was not warranted and that the sentence awarded the Applicant at his court-martial was appropriate for the offenses he committed. 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 | 2011_Marine | MD1101610

Original file (MD1101610.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 is not eligible for further reviews from the NDRB. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the...
USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0900167

Original file (MD0900167.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Board determined the characterization of service received, “General (Under Honorable Conditions)”, was an appropriate characterization considering the length of service and the UCMJ violations involved, and based on the lack of post service documentation provided an upgrade would be inappropriate.After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Record, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found ADDENDUM:...
NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1200015

Original file (ND1200015.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. The NDRB determined his discharge Under Other Than Honorable Conditions for Misconduct (Serious Offense) was both proper and equitable and is an accurate reflection of his service during his second enlistment.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...
NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1200991

Original file (ND1200991.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to:Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive:USNR (DEP)19950717 - 19951009Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Current Enlistment: 19951010Age at Enlistment: Period of Enlistment: YearsExtensionDate of Discharge:19990808Highest Rank/Rate: ANLength of Service: Year(s) Month(s) 27 Day(s)Education Level:AFQT: 36EvaluationMarks:Performance:3.3(4)Behavior:2.5(4)OTA: 3.07Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):Periods...
NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1101250

Original file (ND1101250.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 increase employment opportunities. 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...
USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0901429

Original file (MD0901429.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. If a former member has been discharged for more than 15 years, has already been granted a personal appearance hearing or has otherwise exhausted...

Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1301760

Similar Decisions