Upgrade.Vet

NAVY | DRB | 2014_Navy | ND1400759

Original file (ND1400759.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-EO3, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20130320

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)        20011211 - 20020225     Active:

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20020226     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20060828      Highest Rank/Rate: EO3
Length of Service: Year(s) Month(s) 03 D ay(s)
Education Level:        AFQT: 41
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: 3.8 ( 4 )      Behavior: 2.8 ( 4 )        OTA: 3.18

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      (3)

Periods of UA :

NJP :    S CM : SPCM:             CC:

CIVIL ARREST:

- 20050912 :      Charges: Grand Larceny

Retention Warning Counseling:

- 2 0030603 : For failure to meet body composition assessment standards

- Date Not Found in Record :      For failure to meet body composition assessment standards on 20051108

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

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

         “ 19770913 ”
         Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, should read: “NAVY “E” RIBBON, GOOD CONDUCT MEDAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE SERVICE MEDAL, GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM EXPEDITIONARY MEDAL, SEA SERVICE DEPLOYMENT RIBBON (3), SEABEE COMBAT WARFARE, LETTER OF COMMENDATION”
         “ ”
         “ MISCONDUCT (SERIOUS OFFENSE) ”

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:                  Other Documentation:
                  Additional Statements:
         From Applicant:          From/To Representation:          From/To Congress member:

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 11, effective 26 April 2005 until 11 June 2008, 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 121 (Larceny) .

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

Applicant’s Issues

1. The Applicant contends the c riminal charges that led to his discharge were d ismissed, and his service was worthy of an Honorable discharge.

Decision

Date: 20 1 4 0904 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 NAVPERS 1070/613 (Page 13) warnings and one civilian arrest for grand larceny. Based on the offense committed by the Applicant, command administratively processed for separation. When notified of administrative separation processing using the procedure, the Applicant exercised rights to consult with a qualified counsel, submit a written statement, and request an administrative board on 22 November 2005. However, before appearing at his administrative separation board, on 18 March 2006, he waived his right to appear before an administrative board .

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends the criminal charges that led to his discharge were d ismissed, and his service was worthy of an Honorable discharge. The Applicant was notified of, and was discharged for, Misconduct (Serious Offense) , not for Misconduct (Civilian Conviction) . Per Naval Military Personnel Manual Article 1910-142, “c ommission of a serious offense does not require adjudication by non-judicial or judicial proceedings; however, the offense must be substantiated by a preponderance of evidence (e.g., copy of police record, Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) investigation, etc.).” The Applicant’s service record includes a detailed report conducted by the Gulfport Police Department documenting the ev ents that took place on 12 September 2005 that led to the Applicant being arrested and charged with grand larceny. This report goes further to indicate that the Applicant admitted to the investigati ng detective that he was attempt ing to steal a Se a - Doo, which was not his , when he was caught by the arresting officer. The Applicant’s command properly advised him of his rights, waited for a thorough investigation to be completed by the Gulfport Police Department, and only initiated separation proceedings after the evidence was gathered. Furthermore, the Applicant ’s charges were not dismissed because he was found not guilty but because the owner of the Sea-Doo could not be located.

Despite a servicemember’s prior record of service, certain serious offenses, even though isolated, warrant separation from the to maintain proper order and discipline. Grand larceny is one such offense that warrants administrative separation regardless of grade, performance, or time in service. This usually results in an unfavorable discharge or, at a maximum, a punitive discharge and possible confinement if adjudicated and awarded as part of a sentence by a special or general court-martial. However, his command did not pursue a punitive discharge but opted instead for the more lenient administrative discharge. After a thorough review of the record, the NDRB determined a preponderance of the evidence reviewed supports the conclusion that the Applicant committed a serious offense, that he was afforded full due process, that separation from the Navy was warranted , and that an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge was equitable. 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 hearing for a period of 15 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 | 2014_Navy | ND1400244

Original file (ND1400244.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The record of evidence clearly shows the Applicant waived his rights to an administrative separation board. 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)...
NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900925

Original file (ND0900925.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-AE3, USNR (TAR) Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request Application Received: 20090309 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: NONE Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 19940225 Age at Enlistment: Period of Enlistment: Years Extension Date of Discharge: 19991123 Highest Rank/Rate:...
NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1300845

Original file (ND1300845.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Clemency 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. ADDENDUM: Information for the Applicant Complaint Procedures : If you believe the...
NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900339

Original file (ND0900339.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: Substance Abuse: Criminal Records: Family/Personal Status: Community Service: References: Additional Statements: From Applicant: From Representation:From Congress member: Other Documentation: DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL...
NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1300449

Original file (ND1300449.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. Additionally, the NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities.
NAVY | DRB | 2015_Navy | ND1501051

Original file (ND1501051.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Issue 2: (Decisional) (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. Additionally, the NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities.
NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1101729

Original file (ND1101729.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 | 2014_Navy | ND1401500

Original file (ND1401500.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. 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 remain UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS and the narrative reason for separation shall remain MISCONDUCT (SERIOUS OFFENSE). ” Additional Reviews : After a...
NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600039

Original file (ND0600039.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Specification 2: SN D_ (Applicant) did at fleet information warfare center on or about 11 Dec 00, with intent to deceive, make to his CPO an official statement during suspect’s rights acknowledgement statement state that he did not commit larceny which was totally false and was then known by SN D_ (Applicant) to be so false. The names, and votes of the members of the...
NAVY | DRB | 2004 Marine | MD04-00131

Original file (MD04-00131.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant requested the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Issues, as stated Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:Issue 1: “My discharge states that I was discharged because of a commission of a serious offense based on my arrest by civilian authorities on 910426 for criminal conspiracy. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the...

Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2014_Navy | ND1400759

Similar Decisions