Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2014_Navy | ND1400181
Original file (ND1400181.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-QM3, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20131106
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)        19991026 - 19991228     Active:  

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 19991229     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20051122      Highest Rank/Rate: QM3
Length of Service: Y ear( s ) M onth( s ) 14 D a y ( s )
 Education Level:        AFQT: 34
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: NFIR         Behavior: NFIR   OTA: NFIR

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      (2) (2) (2) (2)

Periods of UA /C ONF :

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

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

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

         “ 99 DEC 29 ”
         “ 05 10 14 ”

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:                  Oth er Documentation:    
                  Additional Statements:
         From Applicant:           From/To Representation:           From/To Congress member:        




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

Applicant’s Issues

 1.       The Applicant contends he was told that six months after his separation, his discharge would automatically upgrade to Honorable.
2. The Applicant contends his in-service conduct warrants an upgrade to Honorable.
3. The Applicant contends he was wrongfully separated and the choices provided to him were unjust.
4.       The Applicant contends his post-service conduct warrants consideration for an upgrade.

Decision

Date: 20 1 4 0612             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 no NAVPERS 1070/613 (Page 13) warnings and no misconduct resulting in nonjudicial punishment or court-martial. However, facing a punitive Bad Conduct Discharge, confinement, a fine, and reduction in rank to E-1 at a Special Court-Martial, o n 27 October 2005, the Applicant submitted his request for separation in lieu of trial by court-martial. In the request for discharge, the Applicant note d that his counsel had fully explained the elements of the offenses for which he was charged and that he was guilty of those offenses. He certif ied a complete understanding of the negative consequences of his actions and that characterization of service could be Under Other Than Honorable Conditions, which might deprive him of virtually all veterans benefits based upon his current enlistment. The Navy accepted his request and discharged him Under Other Than Honorable Conditions for Separation In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial.

: ( Nond ecisional) The Applicant contends he was told that six months after his separation, his discharge would automatically upgrade to Honorable. There is no law or regulation that authorizes a discharge to be automatically upgraded after six months or at any time after discharge . Neither the Navy nor the NDRB automatically upgrade a discharge after six months or at any other time . A former service member does have the right to have a documentary review and appear before the NDRB within 15 years after discharge, but there is no guarantee that an upgrade will be granted.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends his in-service conduct warrants an upgrade to Honorable. Facing charges at a Special Court-Martial, the Applicant requested to be separated in lieu of trial and admitted his guilt. After a thorough review, the NDRB determined he engaged in conduct involving one or more acts or omissions that constituted a significant departure from the conduct expected of members of the Naval Service and further determined his discharge was proper and equitable. Relief denied.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends he was wrongfully separated and the choices provided to him were unjust. The record shows the Applicant was not taken to court-martial but was administratively separated from the Navy after requesting separation in lieu of trial by court-martial. He could have gone to court-martial to defend himself against the charges, however, he pled guilty and accepted an administrative discharge. The NDRB found that he received full due process and was afforded all applicable rights. Relief denied.






Issue 4: (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 a personal statement and 10 character references. 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. T he Board determined the documentation submitted by the Applicant does not demonstrate if in-service misconduct was an aberration. 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 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. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 11, effective 31 May 2005 until Present, Article 1910-106, SEPARATION IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT-MARTIAL.

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)(b), 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 .


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 | 2008_Navy | ND0801134

    Original file (ND0801134.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT Applicant’s Issues 1. The NDRB determined an upgrade would be inappropriate.After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, ” Additional Reviews : Subsequent to a document review, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application is received at the NDRB within 15 years from the date of discharge.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1300775

    Original file (ND1300775.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 | 2008_Navy | ND0801263

    Original file (ND0801263.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s Request: Characterization change to: Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive: USNR (DEP) 19960909 - 19961118 Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 19961119Period of Enlistment: Years Extension Date of Discharge: 20020909Length of Service: Years Months08 Days Education Level: Age at Enlistment: AFQT: 40Highest Rank/Rate: QM3 Evaluation Marks: Performance: 3.4 (5) Behavior: 2.8 (5) OTA: 3.10Awards and Decorations (per DD...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0901087

    Original file (ND0901087.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The command granted his request and discharged him with an Under Other than Honorable characterization of service based on the offenses committed. 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 . ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2014_Navy | ND1400271

    Original file (ND1400271.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant contends his in-service conduct warrants an upgrade.2. Representation: 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2014_Navy | ND1401307

    Original file (ND1401307.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1101954

    Original file (ND1101954.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant seeks an upgrade to enhance employment opportunities.2. ” 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500969

    Original file (ND0500969.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests his characterization of service received at the time of discharge changed to honorable. The Applicant was dual processed for separation by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense and by reason of homosexual admission. The Applicant’s misconduct, warranting separation for misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense, is clearly documented in the service record.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700890

    Original file (ND0700890.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board determined that the Applicant’s post service did not mitigate the misconduct which resulted in the Applicant’s discharge and characterization of his service. After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, medical and service record entries, discharge process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found that Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive: USNR (DEP) 20010629 - 20010709Active: 19840306 - 19880304 Period of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1100928

    Original file (ND1100928.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Representation: 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...