Upgrade.Vet

NAVY | DRB | 2014_Navy | ND1400503

Original file (ND1400503.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-LT, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20140116

Characterization of Service Received:

Narrative Reason for Discharge:
Authority for Discharge: SECNAVINST 1920.6C

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

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive: USN R-E 20020306 - 20030624     Active:

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Appointment : 200 30625     Age: 29
Years Contracted : Indefinite
Date of Discharge: 20121031       Highest Rank : LT
Length of Service: Year(s) Month(s) 07 D ay(s)
Education Level:         AFQT: NFIR
Officer’s Fitness reports: Available

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      Pistol NCM (2) NAM (3) SWMD O FMFO

Periods of UA /C ONF :

NJP :

- 20111018 :      Article (Failure to obey order or regulation)
         Article 133 (Conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentlemen , 2 specifications )
         Specification 1: Adultery
         Specification 2: Fraternization
         Article (General A rticle , 2 specifications )
         Specification 1: Adultery
         Specification 2: Fraternization
         Awarded: Punitive Letter of Reprimand FOP RESTR Suspended: RESTR (50 days)

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

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:

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

Applicant’s Issues

1.       The Applicant contends the General discharge was inequitable given the overall quality of her service.
2.       The Applicant contends the General discharge was inequitable given the fact that she was preyed upon by a predator, was blackmailed, and was not properly assisted by her chain of command .

Decision

Date: 20 1 4 0821             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. The 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 for o f the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 92 ( Failure to obey an order or regulation, 1 specification ), Article 133 ( Conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentlemen , 2 specific ations : Adultery and fraternization ), and Article 134 ( General Article , 2 specific ation s : Adultery and fraternization ) . Based on the offenses committed and pending administrative discharge processing, the Applicant submit ted an unqualified letter of resignation , which was accepted and approved .

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends th e General discharge was inequitable given the overall quality of her service. The NDRB recognizes that serving in the military is stressful and challenging. Most o fficers , however, serve honorably and therefore earn their Honorable discharges. In fairness to those o fficers , commanders and the Secretary of the Navy are tasked to ensure that undeserving o fficers receive no higher characterization than is due. Based upon available records, nothing indicates that the Applicant’s discharge was in any way inconsistent with the standards of discipline in the United States Navy. The NDRB conducted an exhaustive review of the Applicant’s service record and found that she had a stellar record u p to the point of her misconduct. Additionally, she submitted several character reference letters attesting to her strong performance in Iraq and throughout her nine years in the Navy. However, there was serious misconduct committed by the Applicant that she pled guilty to at NJP , and this misconduct warranted discharge. The record , along with documentation submitted during the personal hearing, shows the Applicant submitted a written stateme nt and an unqualified letter of resignation in lieu of further administrative actions. If the Applicant felt the discharge was inequitable, she could have opted to go to a Board of Inquiry (BOI). At the BOI, she would have had the opportunity to mount a defense against the charges , submit matters of mitigation, and show how the discharge offered to her d id not reflect her overall service. After a complete review of the Applicant’s record over nine years of service and after listening to her testimony, the NDRB determined her discharge was proper and equitable. Relief denied.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends the General discharge was inequitable given the fact that she was preyed upon by a predator, was blackmailed, and was not properly assisted by her chain of command. The NDRB reviews the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge individually, on a case-by-case basis. If such a review reveals an impropriety or inequity, relief is in order. Regulations permit relief on equitable grounds if the Applicant’s discharge is inconsistent with standards of discipline of the Naval Service. The service record shows the Applicant’s command conducted an extensive preliminary investigation to determine the facts of the case. At the conclusion of this investigat ion, it was found that the Applicant was in a con sensual inappropriate relationship with a Lance Corporal, USMC, therefore committing misconduct in violation of the UCMJ. The Applicant signed a Notification of Intent to Impose Nonjudicial Punishment on 11 October 2011 indicating that she would not demand a trial by court-martial and accept NJP. The Applicant pled guilty to all of the charges alleged against her at NJP conducted on 18 October 2011. The Applicant was awarded a P unitive L etter o f R eprimand, forfeiture of one-half of one month’s pay per month for two months , and restriction to

specified limits , without suspension from duty, for not more than 60 consecutive days (suspended except the first 10 days of the restriction for a period of six months). The Applicant did not appeal the findings or the awarded sentence from NJP. The Punitive Letter of Reprimand states the Applicant “waived your right to a Board of Inquiry (BOI) proceeding and submitted an unqualified resignation from active duty.” On the Acknowledg ment of Rights dated 9 March 2012 from the Applicant to Commander, Navy Region Southwest, via Commanding General, 1 ^st Marine Logistics Group, the Applicant initialed , “I desire to tender my qualified resignation request for an U nder Honorable C onditions (General) discharge and waive my right to a BOI.” This request was approved by the Chief of Naval Personnel on 6 August 2012 , and the Applicant was subsequently discharged on 31 October 2012. Throughout this process, the Applicant admitted to the NDRB that she had the opportunity to consult with both civilian and military c ounsel prior to her discharge. Additionally, the Applicant did not submit evidence, other than her testimony, supporting predatory behavior, blackmail, and lack of command assistance.

In reviewing the record along with the testimony given by the Applicant during the personal hearing, it is clear that she entered into a consensual inappropriate relationship aboard a U.S. Navy ship with a Lance Corporal, USMC. Although she may have been pressured or even coerced to continue the relationship, it does not excuse her responsibilities as a Naval Officer to ensure the strict adherence to the UCMJ and to cultivate an environment supporting good order and discipline. The NDRB found that her chain of command properly conducted an investigation and offered her an opportunity to exercise all of her rights throughout the entirety of the process leading to her discharge from the Nav y . A preponderance of the evidence reviewed supports the conclusion that the Applicant committed misconduct , that separation from the Naval Service was appropriate, and that a n Under Honorable Conditions ( General ) discharge was 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 is not eligible for further reviews by the NDRB. The Applicant may petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records, 701 South Courthouse Road, Suite 1001, Arlington, VA 22204-2490 for further review using DD Form 149. Their website can be found at http://www.donhq.navy.mil/bcnr/bcnr.htm . The Applicant is directed to the Addendum for additional information.

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 1920.6C (ADMINISTRATIVE SEPARATION OF OFFICERS), effective 15 December 2005 until Present, establishes policies, standards and procedures for the administrative separation of Navy and Marine Corps officers from the naval service in accordance with Title 10, United States Code and DoD Directive 1332.30 of 14 March 1997.

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 .

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 | 2011_Navy | ND1101226

Original file (ND1101226.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

On 4 Oct 2010, the Commander, Navy Personnel Command recommended to the Secretary of the Navy that the Applicant receive a General (Under Honorable Conditions)discharge due to Misconduct (Other). On 6 Oct 2010, the Secretary of the Navy (Separation Authority) directed the Applicant be administratively separated with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge. Relief denied.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service,...
NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1200814

Original file (ND1200814.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Accordingly, the NDRB found the Applicant’s issue to be without merit and did not provide a basis for relief. 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 any further reviews from the NDRB. ” Additional Reviews : After...
USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0500419

Original file (MD0500419.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

By unanimous vote, the BOI recommended that that Applicant be separated from the naval service for the reasons listed above and the service be characterized as other than honorable.020211: Applicant’s request denied. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (B and C).The Applicant contends that his discharge was improper because the Board of Inquiry (BOI), which...
NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501504

Original file (ND0501504.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Charge IV: Violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Specification 1: In that Lieutenant Junior Grade S_ J. D_(Applicant), U.S. Navy, USS STETHEM, on active duty, having knowledge of a lawful order issued by Commanding Officer, USS STETHEM, to wit: NONPUNITIVE LETTER OF CAUTION, dated December 02, 2002, an order which it was her duty to obey, did, on or about Dec 03, 2002, fail to obey the same by wrongfully continuing a personal relationship with GM2 R_ D. M_. Specification 2: In that Lieutenant...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 06711-08

Original file (06711-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

[Petitioner] was involuntarily discharged from the Marine Corps with an honorable characterization of service and has been on continuous active duty since October 1994 until her separation. Accordingly, we recommend that [Petitioner's] request for separation [sic] be denied. Furthermore, the law and regulations allow commanders to recommend separation of commissioned officers without the recommendation of a BOI when they have less than five years of active duty service.
USMC | DRB | 2012_Marine | MD1201293

Original file (MD1201293.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The command recommended that her request for resignation be disapproved, and she be processed for administrative separation for misconduct. Full relief by changing the narrative reason to Hardship was not granted, because Failure to Complete Course of Instruction is the most accurate description of why she was discharged from the Marine Corps.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entries, and discharge process, the...
NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1001446

Original file (ND1001446.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Commander, Naval Personnel Command, as the show cause authority, reviewed the Applicant’s unqualified request for resignation and approved it on 31 March 2006, directing that the Applicant receive a General (Under Honorable Conditions) characterization of his service and that he be separated from the Navy due to Misconduct (Serious Offense). He failed to take personal responsibility and accountability for himself and he failed to hold himself to the highest of standards as expected of a...
NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1000808

Original file (ND1000808.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. The Applicant was advised...
USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0901494

Original file (MD0901494.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. : (Decisional) () .The Applicant contends his BOI lacked a legal basis for its decision and recommendation. ” 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.
USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1001600

Original file (MD1001600.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT Applicant’s Issues 1. The NDRB found the Applicant’s misconduct of record to be far outside the bounds considered acceptable for a Marine officer. ” 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.

Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2014_Navy | ND1400503

Similar Decisions