Upgrade.Vet

NAVY | DRB | 2015_Navy | ND1500317

Original file (ND1500317.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-AE3, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20141210

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 Current Enlistment: 20060721    Age at Enlistment:
Period of Enlistment: Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20110411     Highest Rank/Rate: AE3
Length of Service:
         Inactive:        Year(s) Month(s) 09 Day(s)
         Active   Year(s) 08 Month(s) 19 Day(s)
Education Level:        AFQT: 76
Evaluation Marks:        Performance: 3.3 (3)     Behavior: 3.3 (3)       OTA: 3.33

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):

NJP:     SCM:     SPCM:    CC:      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:

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A. The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 26, effective 3 April 2009 until Present, MILPERSMAN Article 1910-158, SEPARATION BY REASON OF UNSATISFACTORY PARTICIPATION IN THE READY RESERVE.

B. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part IV, Para 403m(7)(b), Presumption Concerning Court-Martial Specifications.

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

Applicant’s Issues

1. The Applicant contends that his records were transferred to a reserve center in Virginia by error which led to him being incorrectly marked as absent.

Decision

Date: 20150311 Location: Washington D.C. Representation:

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 governmental 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 no NAVPERS 1070/613 (Page 13) warnings and no misconduct resulting in nonjudicial punishment or court-martial. However, the record shows the Applicant had 12 unexcused missed drill periods between May and September 2010. Based on the Applicant’s missed drill periods, command administratively processed for separation. When notified of administrative separation processing using the procedure, the Applicant failed to respond to the notification which constituted a waiving of rights to consult with a qualified counsel, submit a written statement, and request a General Court-Martial Convening Authority review.

: (Decisional) () . The Applicant contends that his records were transferred to a reserve center in Virginia by error which led to him being incorrectly marked as absent. The Applicant further contends that his records were transferred to Virginia outside his command’s knowledge. The NDRB 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. Other than the Applicant’s personal statements, he provided no evidence to support his contention. More importantly, all the evidence in the record is to the contrary. The service record shows that the Navy Operational Support Center, Miami initiated the Applicant’s administrative separation, not the reserve unit in Virginia. Additionally, the Applicant was afforded the opportunity to contest his administrative separation but waived that right through his failure to respond to the notification. On 03 December 2010, the notification of administrative separation processing was sent certified mail to the Applicant’s address on file. It is the responsibility of the servicemembers to ensure that their contact information is correct and up to date. In this case, the notification was sent to the same address that the Applicant used on his current application to the NDRB. The record clearly shows that the Applicant had 12 unexcused missed drill periods between May and September 2010. Therefore, the NDRB must presume regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs. 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 remain GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS) and the narrative reason for separation shall remain UNSATISFACTORY PARTICIPATION. 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 | 2009_Navy | ND0902472

Original file (ND0902472.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Regulations limit the Board’s review to a determination of the propriety and equity of the discharge.Additionally, 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.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entriesand discharge process, the Board found Therefore, the awarded characterization of...
NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1301123

Original file (ND1301123.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to:Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive:USNR (DEP)19810220 - 19810816Active:19810817 - 19850816USNR 19850817 - 19870816 USNR 19910522 - 19970521USNR 19970522 - 19990514USNR 19990515 - 20020514 Period of Service Under Review: Date of Current Enlistment: 20030724Age at Enlistment: 40Period of Enlistment: YearsExtensionDate of Discharge:20100725Highest Rank/Rate: NDCLength of Service: Inactive: Year(s) Month(s) 02...
NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700496

Original file (ND0700496.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Applicant contends that his discharge was inequitable due to inconsistencies in documentation of his alcohol dependency.The service records that the Board reviewed indicate the following: 1) The Applicant went to NJP 20041014 for drunk and disorderly conduct in Guam and damage to government property, 2) completed Alcohol Impact 20041104, 3) was diagnosed as alcohol dependent by a psychologist 20050222, 4) went to NJP on 20050224 for drunk and disorderlyconduct and assault on a commissioned...
NAVY | DRB | 2014_Navy | ND1400825

Original file (ND1400825.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. 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 included12 periods of unexcused absences from required Navy Reserve drills in a 12-month period during 2011. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has...
NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801192

Original file (ND0801192.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Representation: By a vote of the Characterization shall .By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT MARTIAL.Discussion Issue 1: (Equity) RELIEF NOT WARRANTED. ” Additional Reviews : Subsequent to a document review, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application is received at the NDRB within 15 years from the date of discharge. Additionally, the NDRB does not have the authority to change a narrative reason for separation to...
NAVY | DRB | 2015_Navy | ND1500749

Original file (ND1500749.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: Pertinent Regulation/Law A. Summary: After a...
NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1001582

Original file (ND1001582.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to:Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive:USAR 20031201-20040524 HONActive: 20000718-20031130 HON Period of Service Under Review: Date of Current Enlistment: 20040525Age at Enlistment:Period of Enlistment: YearsExtensionDate of Discharge:20070607Highest Rank/Rate:EO3Length of Service: Years Months14 DaysLength of Service: Inactive: Year(s)Month(s) 13 Day(s) Active Year(s)Month(s) 13 Day(s)Education Level:AFQT:...
NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0902011

Original file (ND0902011.rtf) Auto-classification: 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 PARENTHOOD OR CUSTODY OF MINOR CHILDREN. ” 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...
USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0902166

Original file (MD0902166.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT Applicant’s Issues 1. Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entries, discharge process,post-service conduct, and personal testimony, 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...
NAVY | DRB | 2015_Navy | ND1500259

Original file (ND1500259.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. 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 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 | 2015_Navy | ND1500317

Similar Decisions