Upgrade.Vet

NAVY | DRB | 2014_Navy | ND1400765

Original file (ND1400765.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-AN, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20140314

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)        20030129 - 20030619     Active:

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20030620     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20070315      Highest Rank/Rate: AB FAN
Length of Service: Year(s) Month(s) 26 D ay(s)
Education Level:        AFQT: 42
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: 2.5 ( 4 )      Behavior: 2.3 ( 4 )        OTA: 2.71

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

Periods of C ONF :

NJP :

- 20061027 :      Article (Failure to obey order or regulation)
         Awarded: Suspended:

- 20070302 :      Article (Absence without leave , 0600, 20070118 - 0600, 20070129, 11 days)
         Awarded: Suspended:

S CM :    SPCM:    C C :

Retention Warning Counseling:

- 20060615 :      For a set pattern of failure to contribute adequate support to family members.

- 20061027 :      For failure to obey a lawful general regulation by wrongfully not paying adequate support to family member on or about 20060929.

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

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

         “ 2003 JUN 20 ”
         “ ”

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 19 May 2008, Article 1910-140, SEPARATION BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT - PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT.

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 .

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

Applicant’s Issues

1.       The Applicant wants to use the GI Bill.
2.       The Applicant contends he served honorably and only had misconduct in his last six months of service when his wife used his command to blackmail him during a nasty divorce, and his command took matters into their own hands and railroaded him out of the Navy when he sought help.
3.       The Applicant contends his post-service conduct warrants consideration for an upgrade.

Decision

Date: 20 1 4 0826             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 Applicant’s record of service included NAVPERS 1070/613 (Page 13) warnings and for o f the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 92 ( Failure to obey order or regulation , failing to pay adequate support to family member ) and Article 86 ( Absence without leave, 11 days ). Based on the offenses committed by the Applicant, command administratively processed for separation . The NDRB did not have the Applicant’s administrative separation package to determine whether or not the Applicant exercised rights to consult with a qualified counsel and to submit a written statement .

: (Nondecisional) The Applicant wants to use the GI Bill. 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.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends he served honorably and only had misconduct in his last six months of service when his wife used his command to blackmail him during a nasty divorce, and his command took matters into their own hands and railroaded him out of the Navy when he sought help. A review of the Applicant’s records show s that he was given a retention warning in June 2006 for a set pattern of failure to contribute adequate support to family members . In October 2006, the Applicant’s command found him guilty at NJP of violating UCMJ Article 92 (Failure to obey an order or regulation) and issued him a second retention warning for failure to obey a lawful general regulation by wrongfully not paying adequate support to a family member on or about 29 September 2006. At this point, the Applicant met the requirements to be administratively separated for Misconduct (Serious Offense) and Misconduct (Pattern of Misconduct). His command, however, determined he was still fit to serve and did not initiate administrative separation proceedings. In January 2007, the Applicant went into an unauthorized absence period for 11 days and was found guilty at NJP on 2 March 2007. At this point, his command determined he was no longer fit to serve and initiated administrative separation proceedings along with a lenient recommendation for a General (Under Honorable Conditions) characterization of service. With the Applicant’s below-average evaluations and his pattern of misconduct, this typically would have resulted in an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge. After a thorough review of the Applicant’s service, the NDRB determined his command gave him multiple opportunities to correct his poor behavior, there was no evidence that his wife used the command to blackmail him, and there was no evidence that his command railroaded him. Quite the contrary, his command gave him multiple opportunities to correct his behavior and then recommended a lenient General discharge. Relief denied.

Issue 3: (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, a technical certificate of credit, proof of college enrollment, and test results for an EPA certification. 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.

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 | ND0700868

Original file (ND0700868.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Each violation of UCMJ Article 90 (willfully disobeying a commissioned officer), 91 (insubordinate conduct), 92 (failure to obey), and 134 (communicating a threat) constitutes the “commission of a serious offense” which forms the basis for the Applicant’s discharge and is punishable by a dishonorable discharge and up to five years of imprisonment for each specification. ” Additional Reviews : Subsequent to a document review, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing,...
NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1300470

Original file (ND1300470.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant a pre-service drug waiver for using marijuana prior to entering the Navy.Based on the Article 112a violation, processing for administrative separation is mandatory.When notified of administrative separation processing using the procedure for a Pattern of Misconduct and Misconduct (Drug Abuse), 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...
NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00773

Original file (ND01-00773.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ND01-00773 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010515, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. The discharge shall remain: GENERAL UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS/PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-140 (formerly 3630600). The applicant’s second issue states: “(American Legion's Equity Issue) This former member further requests that the Board include provision of SECNAVINST 5420.174C,...
NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801856

Original file (ND0801856.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant has requested an upgrade in his discharge characterization to “General (Under Honorable Conditions)”. The NDRB determined the Applicant’s repeated serious misconduct were properly considered in determining the characterization of his service and the awarded discharge characterization was appropriate; an upgrade would be inappropriate.After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Record Entries, Discharge Process and evidence...
NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-01330

Original file (ND04-01330.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review. _______________________________________________________________________ In accordance with 32 C.F.R., section 724.166, and SECNAVINST 5420.174C, enclosure (1), paragraph 1.16, The American Legion submits to the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB or Board) the above issue and following statement in supplement to the Applicant’s petition.Review of the available records reflect that this former member maintained satisfactory...
NAVY | DRB | 2014_Navy | ND1400503

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

Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to:Narrative Reason change to: Summary of ServicePrior Service: Inactive: USNR-E20020306 - 20030624 Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Appointment: 20030625Age: 29Years Contracted: Indefinite Date of Discharge: 20121031 Highest Rank: LTLength of Service: Year(s) Month(s) 07 Day(s) Education Level: AFQT: NFIROfficer’s Fitness reports: AvailableAwards and Decorations (per DD 214):Pistol NCM (2)NAM (3)SWMDO FMFOPeriods of UA/CONF: NJP:-...
NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1000151

Original file (ND1000151.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 | 2013_Navy | ND1301610

Original file (ND1301610.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant contends his in-service conduct warrants an upgrade.3. The Applicant contends his in-service conduct warrants an upgrade.Though the Applicant’s record was incomplete, there is documentation that the Separation Authority approved and directed the Applicant’s discharge Under Other Than Honorable Conditions for a Pattern of Misconduct. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the...
USMC | DRB | 2012_Marine | MD1200730

Original file (MD1200730.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

” During the Applicant’s enlistment, he was found guilty at NJP of violating UCMJ Articles 92 and 111 and received six 6105 retention warning counselings. Per the MARCORSEPMAN, the Applicant had a minimum of two incidents, received and violated 6105 warnings, and met the requirements for administrative separation processing for a Pattern of Misconduct. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided...
NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0901011

Original file (ND0901011.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

A request for a waiver can be submitted during the processing of a formal application for reenlistment through a recruiter. The Board also determined that an upgrade to Honorable was not warranted based on a review of the Applicant’s statement on his DD Form 293, the record of evidence, and the seriousness of the Applicant’s misconduct as outlined in the incident complaint report.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service,...

Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2014_Navy | ND1400765

Similar Decisions