Upgrade.Vet

NAVY | DRB | 2014_Navy | ND1400314

Original file (ND1400314.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-ABEAR, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20131217

Characterization of Service Received: DISCHARGE

Narrative Reason for Discharge:
Authority for Discharge: MILPERSMAN

Applicant’s Request:      Characterization change to:       , , or
         Narrative Reason change to:

Summary of Service
Prior Service:
Inactive:         US N R (DEP)        19950408 - 19960116     Active:

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 19960117     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 19991222      Highest Rank/Rate: ABEAA
Length of Service: Y ear( s ) M onth( s ) 06 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 40
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: 2.5 ( 2 )      Behavior: 2.5 ( 2 )        OTA: 2.67
Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):

Period I n Hands of Civil Authorities : 19981117-19981123, 7 days

NJP :

- 19970620 :      Article (Absence without leave)
         Article (General A rticle, communicate a threat)
         Awarded: Suspended:

S CM :

- 19970224 :       Art icle (Absence without leave , 2 specifications )
         Specification 1: 0700, 19961021-1545, 19970122, 94 days
         Specification 2: 0700, 19970124-2345, 19970217, 25 days
         Article (Missing movement)
         Specification 1: Missing movement on 19970122
         Specification 2: Missing movement on 19970201
         Sentence : (19970224-19970320, 25 days)

- 19980611 :       Art icle (Absence without leave , 2 specifications )
         Specification 1: 19980430-19980504, 5 days
         Specification 2: 19980529-19980603, 6 days
         Sentence : (19980611-19980705, 25 days)

SPCM:

- 19990128 :       Art icle (Absence without leave , 2 specifications )
         Specification 1: 19980913-19981117, 66 days
         Specification 2: 19981130-19981217, 18 days
         Art icle (General A rticle, break restriction)
         Sentence : 75 days ( 19981217-19990127, 42 days)

C C :

Retention Warning Counseling :

- 19970505 :       For violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 86, unauthorized absence from 0700, 19961021 until 1545, 19970122 and 0700, 19970124 until 2345, 19970217; and Article 87 (2 specifications) missing movement through neglect on 19970122 and 19970201 .

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. The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 22, effective 15 December 1998 to 21 August 2002, 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 contends youth and immaturity were contributing factors in his misconduct .
2.       The Applicant contends his in-service conduct is worthy of clemency .

Decision

Date : 20 1 4 0710             Location: Washington D.C .        R epresentation :

By a vote of the Characterization shall .
By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall .

Discussion

In reviewing discharges, the NDRB presumes regularity in the conduct of Government 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 6105 counseling warning, for o f the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 86 ( Absence without leave) and Article 134 ( General A rticle ) , for of the UCMJ: Article 86 (Absence without leave, 4 specifications : 94, 25, 5, and 6 days ) and Article 87 ( Missing movement , 2 specifications ) , and for of the UCMJ: Article 8 6 ( Absence without leave, 2 specifications : 66 and 18 days ) and Article 134 (General A rticle) . Additionally, the Applicant’s record of service shows he was held in the hands of civil authorities for 7 days between 17 November 1998 and 23 November 1998. Based on the Applicant ’ s conviction and sentence at a S pecial C ourt- M artial, he was confined and separated with a Bad Conduct Discharge. The Applicant fully exercised his post - court-martial rights to request clemency and have his case reviewed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Services .

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends youth and immaturity were contributing factors in his misconduct . The NDRB recognizes that many of our servicemembers are young at the time they enlist for service, however, most still manage to serve honorably. While the Applicant may feel his youth and immaturity were the underlying causes of his misconduct, the record clearly reflects his willful misconduct and demonstrated he was unfit for further service. While some members may be less mature than others, the NDRB does not view a member’s claim of immaturity to be a mitigating factor or a sufficient reason for misconduct. The evidence of record does not demonstrate the Applicant was not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions. Relief denied.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends his in-service conduct is worthy of clemency. During the Applicant’s 3 year and 11 months of service, he had a retention warning and was found guilty at an NJP, two Summary Courts-Martial, and a Special Court-Martial of numerous UCMJ violations. The Applicant was punitively separated as a result of a guilty finding at a S pecial C ourt- M artial and not separated upon expiration of enlistment or fulfillment of service obligation. The characterization of service is determined by the quality of the member’s total performance of duty and conduct during the current enlistment, including the reason for separation. Other considerations shall be given to the member’s length of service, grade, aptitude, and physical and mental condition. The NDRB found the evidence of record did not contain sufficient mitigating or extenuating factors to offset the seriousness of the offenses for which the discharge was awarded and determined clemency was not warranted . 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

NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0901934

Original file (ND0901934.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant believes his post-service conduct is worthy of clemency. The Applicant is advised that completion of these items alone does not guarantee clemency will be granted, as each discharge is reviewed by the Board on a case by case basis to determine if post service conduct justifies clemency. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former...
USMC | DRB | 2012_Marine | MD1200358

Original file (MD1200358.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The NDRB determined clemency was not warranted based on post-service conduct. 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. ”...
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...
NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1300844

Original file (ND1300844.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to:Narrative Reason change to: Summary of ServicePrior Service: Inactive:USNR (DEP)20020829 - 20021021Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Current Enlistment: 20021022Age at Enlistment:Period of Enlistment: YearsExtensionDate of Discharge:20050726Highest Rank/Rate:NFIRLength of Service:Year(s)Month(s) 05 Day(s)Education Level:AFQT: NFIREvaluationMarks:NFIRAwards and Decorations (per DD 214):Periods of UA: 0700, 20040520 - 0700, 20040702,...
USMC | DRB | 2013_Marine | MD1301497

Original file (MD1301497.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

After a thorough review of the Applicant’s records, the NDRB determined clemency was 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. 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...
NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700284

Original file (ND0700284.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Board determined that the documentation provided by the Applicant did not mitigate the misconduct which resulted in the Applicant’s discharge and characterization of his service. Recommendation on Separation: - Recommendation on Characterization: Commanding Officer Recommendation (date): (19930219) Separation Authority (date): BUPERS (19930310)Reason for discharge directed: - Characterization directed: Date Applicant Discharged: 19930324 Types of Documents Submitted by Applicant and...
NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801481

Original file (ND0801481.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT Applicant’s Issues 1. ” 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. Additionally, the Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities.
USMC | DRB | 2014_Marine | MD1400134

Original file (MD1400134.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

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. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been...
NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1201563

Original file (ND1201563.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

When notified of administrative separation processing using the procedure for Misconduct (Drug Abuse), Misconduct (Serious Offense), and Misconduct (Pattern of Misconduct), the Applicant rights to consult with a qualified counsel, 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 is received at the NDRB within 15 years of...
USMC | DRB | 2012_Marine | MD1201069

Original file (MD1201069.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

: (Decisional) (Board Issue) (Equity) PARTIAL RELIEF 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. Additionally, the NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities.

Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2014_Navy | ND1400314

Similar Decisions