Upgrade.Vet

NAVY | DRB | 2014_Navy | ND1400481

Original file (ND1400481.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-SA, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20140124

Characterization of Service Received:

Narrative Reason for Discharge:
Authority for Discharge: MILPERSMAN

Applicant’s Request:      Characterization change to:
         Narrative Reason change to:       REMOVAL OF MISCONDUCT ; CHANGE SPD AND RE CODES

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive:         US N R (DEP)        20010809 - 20010822     Active:

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20010823     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20030509      Highest Rank/Rate: SN
Length of Service: Y ear( s ) M onth( s ) 17 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 33
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: 3.7 ( 3 )      Behavior: 2.3 ( 3 )        OTA: 3.06

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):

Periods of UA /C ONF :

NJP :

- 20030410 :      Article 132 (Frauds against the United States)
         Awarded: Suspended:

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:

“ GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS) ”
“ MILPERSMAN 1910-142 ”

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 m ember :

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

Applicant’s Issues

1.        The Applicant seeks to transfer from the Army National Guard into the Active Guard Reserve.
2.       The Applicant contends the commanding officer’s recommendation for separation letter is inconsistent with his evaluation report that was signed on the same day.
3.       The Applicant contends he committed no serious offense , therefore, his narrative reason and separation code are incorrect.
4.       The Applicant contends he should have received a hardship discharge.
5.       The Applicant contends his post-service conduct warrants an upgrade.

Decision

Date : 20140710             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. The Applicant’s record of service included for o f the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 132 (Frauds against the United States) . Based on the offense 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, submit a written statement, and request a General Court-Martial Convening Authority review .

: (Nondecisional) The Applicant seeks to transfer from the Army National Guard into the Active Guard Reserve. 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 B oard for Correction of Naval Records can make changes to reenlistment codes. Additionally, the NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends the commanding officer’s recommendation for separation letter is inconsistent with his evaluation report that was signed on the same day. The Evaluation Report & Counseling Record in contention covers the Applicant’s final 10 months of service from 1 6 July 2002 to 09 May 2003. The senior rater marked the Applicant’s Military Bearing/Character and Personal Job Accomplishment/Initiative both as B elow S tandards , and the Individual Trait Average for the report was 2.17 , which is below average . In addition, the commanding officer marked the Applicant’s promotion recommendation with the lowest possible mark , which was Significant Problems. T he NDRB found the Applicant’s contention to be without merit. The commanding officer’s recommendation for separation letter accurately described the quality of the Applicant’s service and provided documentation as to the propriety and equity of his discharge. Relief denied.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends he committed no serious offense , therefore, his narrative reason and separation code are incorrect. In accordance with Naval Military Personnel Manual (MILPERSMAN) Article 1910-142, servicemembers may be separated based on the commission of a serious military or civilian offense when the commanding officer believes the specific circumstances of the offense warrant separation and the offense would warrant a punitive discharge if adjudicated at trial by court-martial for the same or closely related offense. Commission of a serious offense does not require adjudication by nonjudicial or judicial proceedings or civilian conviction, however, the offense must be substantiated by a preponderance of evidence. Per Appendix 12 of the Manual for Courts-Martial United States, v iolation of UCMJ Article 132 (Frauds against the United States) is considered a serious offense , because the violation of this article could result in a Dishonorable Discharge or Bad Conduct Discharge if convicted at a Special or General Court-Martial. The Applicant was found guilty at NJP of violating Article 132 , and per MILPERSMAN Article 1910-142, this

met the requirements to be administratively separated for Misconduct (Serious Offense). The fact that the Applicant paid a fine and served his extra duty does not negate the misconduct. The NDRB determined the narrative reason for separation and separation code are both proper as listed on the DD Form 214 and do not warrant a change. Relief denied.

4 : (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends he should have received a hardship discharge. The Applicant submitted his request for a humanitarian transfer and a medical authority’s recommendation that a hardship discharge be approved. A review of the Applicant’s medical record describes that the Applic ant submitted a package for a h umanitarian transfer , but Commander, Navy Personnel Command denied the request since it did n o t meet the criteria . However, the record also shows the Applicant was offered a h umanitarian d ischarge and was being processed for this type of discharge when his misconduct occurred. The Applicant was not issued the wrong discharge. A ppropriate regulations stipulate that separations for misconduct take precedence over potential separations for other reasons , such as hardship . The Applicant was found guilty at NJP for violation of Article 132 , which is considered a serious offense for which a punitive discharge is authorized. The record shows the Applicant was properly notified of separation for Misconduct ( Serious Offense ) and afforded all applicable rights during the separation process. The NDRB determined his discharge was warranted, proper, and equitable. Relief denied.

5 : (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends his post-service conduct warrants 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 significant documentation concerning his post-service enlistments in the Army National Guard. After a complete review of the Applicant’s statement and post-service documentation, the NDRB determined the characterization of service received was appropriate considering the length of service and UCMJ violation. Relief denied.

The Applicant contends he was awarded a Navy Good Conduct Medal. This is incorrect. To be eligible for a Navy Good Conduct Medal, one must serve for 3 consecutive years without misconduct. The Applicant only served for 1 year and 8 months before being discharged for Misconduct (Serious Offense). The confusion likely arose on the Awards page in the Applicant’s service record, which reset the three year counter after the Applicant’s NJP on 10 April 2003.

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), re-issued October 2002, effective 22 August 2002 until 25 April 2005, 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 132 .

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 | 2007_Navy | ND0700948

Original file (ND0700948.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

From Representation: From Member of Congress: Other Documentation (Describe) DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT Applicant’s Issues 1. 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 Pertinent Regulation/Law A. ” Additional Reviews : Subsequent to a document review,...
NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0902532

Original file (ND0902532.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 . ” 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...
NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1200016

Original file (ND1200016.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/To Congress member: DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD...
NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1002297

Original file (ND1002297.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Based on the offenses committed by the Applicant, his command administratively processed him for separation. ” 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.
NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1301410

Original file (ND1301410.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant contends her discharge was too harsh.The NDRB reviews the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge individually, on a case-by-case basis. Issue 4: (Decisional) (Propriety/Equity) RELIEF 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 | 2007_Navy | ND0700229

Original file (ND0700229.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Certain serious offenses, even though isolated, warrant separation from the Naval service in order to maintain proper order and discipline.The Applicant’s service was marred by three nonjudicial punishments for violations of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) Article 86 [Absent without leave (3 specs)], Article 92 (Failure to Obey Lawful Order) and Article 132 [Fraud against the United States (3 specs)] during his enlistment contract. ” Additional Reviews : Subsequent to a...
NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0800102

Original file (ND0800102.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Administrative Board determined by unanimous vote that the evidence supported the charges; that the misconduct warranted separation and they recommended that the characterization of the Applicant’s service be categorized as under other than honorable conditions. 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. ” Additional Reviews : Subsequent to a...
NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500598

Original file (ND0500598.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. NDRB is not authorized to change a reenlistment code. The Veterans Administration determines eligibility for post-service benefits not the Naval Discharge Review Board.
NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1201904

Original file (ND1201904.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to:Narrative Reason change to:SECRETARIAL AUTHORITY Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive:USNR (DEP)19951130 - 19951226Active: 19951227 - 19990626 HON USN 19990627 - 20040923 HON Period of Service Under Review: Date of Current Enlistment: 20040924Age at Enlistment: Period of Enlistment: YearsExtensionDate of Discharge:20061109Highest Rank/Rate: AO1Length of Service: Year(s) Month(s) 16 Day(s)Education Level:AFQT:...
NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801048

Original file (ND0801048.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 Applicant’s record of...

Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2014_Navy | ND1400481

Similar Decisions