Upgrade.Vet

NAVY | DRB | 2014_Navy | ND1401101

Original file (ND1401101.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-IT3, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20140516

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)        19970430 - 19970723     Active:          19970724 - 20010624

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20010625     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20040901      Highest Rank/Rate: IT2
Length of Service: Y ear( s ) M onth( s ) 07 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 67
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: 3.0 ( 4 )      Behavior: 2.0 ( 4 )        OTA: 2.58

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

Periods of C ONF :

NJP :

- 2 0011013 :      Article (Larceny and wrongful appropriation)
         Awarded: Suspended: 1MONTH

- 20020620 :      Article (Drunken or reckless operation of vehicle, aircraft, or vessel)
         Awarded: Suspended:

- 20040315 :      Article (Absence without leave)
         Article (False officials statements)
         Awarded: Suspended:

S CM :

SPCM:

C C :

- 20030429 :       Offense: Driving a vehicle with .08 percent or more, by weight, alcohol in blood
         Sentence : Probation for 5 years, fine $1950.00, restricted driver’s license for 90 days, must submit to any test at the request of a peace officer for detection of alcohol or drugs in his system, must complete First Conviction Program and MADD within 90 days and sentenced to 180 days custody (stayed pending successful completion of probation)

- 20040715 :       Offense: Carrying a concealed firearm within a vehicle under his control and carrying a loaded firearm in a public place
         Sentence : Probation for 2 years, fine $450.00 and jail for 1 day (served)

Retention Warning Counseling :

- 20040315 :       For false official statement and unauthorized absence.

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

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

         Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, should read: “ RIFLE SHARPSHOOTER BADGE, PISTOL QUALLIFICATION AWARD, ARMED FORCES EXPEDITIONARY MEDAL, SEA SERVICE DEPLOYMENT RIBBON (2) GOOD CONDUCT MEDAL, NAVY UNIT COMMENDATION, NAVY “E” RIBBON (2), ENLISTED SURFACE WARFARE SPECIALIST, ENLISTED AVIATION WARFARE SPECIALIST , LETTER OF COMMENDATION ”
         “CONTINUOUS HONORABLE ACTIVE SERVICE FROM 970724 UNTIL 010624 ”

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 :

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), re-issued October 2002, effective 22 August 2002 until 25 April 2005, 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 contends that the Commission of a Serious Offense Charge was improper since that same charge had been used during an underlying mast, and that prosecuting that charge in two twice would amount to “Dual processing. ”
2.       The Applicant contends that the Administrative board unanimously voted (3-0) to retain him in the US Navy.

Decision

Date: 20 1 4 1030             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 complete d a thorough review of the circumstances that led to the Applicant’s discharge and the discharge process to ensure discharge met the pertinent standards of equity and proprie ty. The Applicant’s record of service included NAVPERS 1070/613 (Page 13) warnings, for o f the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 121 ( Larceny and wrongful appropriation ), Article 111 ( Drunken operation of a vehicle, aircraft, or vessel), Article 86 ( Absent without leave ) , and Article 107 (False official statements.) ; and civilian convictions for DUI, and carrying a concealed firearm within a vehicle and carrying a loaded firearm in a public place. Based on the offense(s) committed by the Applicant, command administratively processed for separation.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends that the Commission of a Serious Offense Charge was improper since that same charge had been used during an underlying mast, and that prosecuting that charge twice would amount to “Dual processing. ” The narrative reason for discharge was PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, not COMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE. Therefore the Applicant’s claim of Dual Processing is not germane to the case since it was not the reason for discharge. To establish a pattern of misconduct, only two NJPs need to have occurred in the same enlistment. The Applicant had three NJP s and an additional two Civilian Convictions, more than enough to establish the pattern of misconduct independently . Relief Denied.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contend s that the Administrative board unanimously voted (3-0) to retain him in the US Navy. The record clearly indicates that the Administrative Board voted 3-0 to recommend the Applicant for separation for both Pattern of Misconduct and a Civilian Conviction while voting 3-0 to recommend retention for the alleged Commission of a Serious Offense. Although the b oard also recommended suspension of the discharge, the Separating A uthority is under no obligation to follow the recommendation of the board. The Separating Authority was well within the guidelines of the UCMJ and the NAVPERSMAN when electing to discharge the Applicant with a GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS) discharge. The NDRB determined that the discharge was equitable based on the misconduct. 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 | 2008_Navy | ND0800550

Original file (ND0800550.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Types of Documents SubmittedRelated to Military Service: DD 214: Service and/or 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 Member of Congress: Other Documentation (Describe) DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW...
NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1000357

Original file (ND1000357.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. Summary: After a thorough...
NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1301784

Original file (ND1301784.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant wants his RE-code changed.2. Additionally, the NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities. ” 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 | ND1201525

Original file (ND1201525.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

With two NJPs and a civilian arrest in his current enlistment, the Applicant met the requirements for administrative separation for Misconduct (Serious Offense) and Misconduct (Pattern of Misconduct).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...
NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1301706

Original file (ND1301706.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. 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...
NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1101531

Original file (ND1101531.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 | 2015_Navy | ND1501114

Original file (ND1501114.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. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review...
USMC | DRB | 2015_Marine | MD1501178

Original file (MD1501178.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant’s record of service included 6105 counseling warnings; for of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 86 (Absence without leave; 4 days); and civilian arrest and conviction for attempts – specifically robbery, and carry of concealed firearm. Based on the offense(s) committed by the Applicant, command administratively processed for separation. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance...
NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500216

Original file (ND0500216.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the Applicant’s service was discovered by the NDRB. Statement: In accordance with 32 CFR § 724, and SECNAVINST 5420.174D, the Veterans of Foreign Wars submits to the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) the above issue...
USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1000988

Original file (MD1000988.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT Applicant’s Issues 1. 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 Government affairs unless there is substantial...

Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2014_Navy | ND1401101

Similar Decisions