ex-AR, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received:  20080603
Characterization of Service Received:  
Narrative Reason for Discharge:  
Authority for Discharge:  MILPERSMAN 

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

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive: USNR (DEP) 19971025 - 19971104  		Active:  

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment:  19971105	 Period of Enlistment:  Years   Extension	Date of Discharge: 19991004
Length of Service:   Years     Months   00 Days	 Education Level:  	 Age at Enlistment:  	  AFQT:  36
Highest Rank/Rate:  AA	Evaluation Marks: Performance:	NFIR	Behavior:  NFIR	OTA:  NFIR
Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	   

Periods of UA/CONF:  UA:  0700-0705, 19981229 (5 minutes) 
                                              0700-1500, 19980326 (8 hours) 
                                              0700, 19980414-0700, 19980415 (1 day) 
                                              0630, 19990606-2100, 19990607 (1 day, 14 hours, 30 minutes) 
                                              0700, 19990702 - 0630, 19990706 (3 days, 23 hours, 30 minutes) 
                                              1800, 19990723 - 0845, 19998015 (22 days, 14 hours, 45 minutes)  

                                       CONF:  

NJPs:  
19990420:  Article 92 (Failure to obey a lawful general regulation), 2 specifications
                   Awarded:   .  Suspended:  

19990722:  Article 86 (UA)
                   Article 112a (Wrongfully use of LSD)
                   Awarded:    .  Suspended:  

SCMs:  
19990914:  Article 86 (Unauthorized absence)
                   Article 87 (Missing ship’s movement)
                   Article 134 (Breaking restriction)
                   Awarded:  FOP CONF

Retention Warnings:  .
19990420:  For failing to obey a lawful general regulation.

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

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

	  “98APR14, 99JUN06, 99JUL02-99JUL05, 99JUL23-99AUG14”

to the Administrative Corrections Applicant’s DD 214 (cont)

The NDRB will recommend to the Commander, Navy Personnel Command, 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:		Substance Abuse:			Criminal Records:	
	Family/Personal Status:		Community Service:		References:		
              Additional Statements:
                             From Applicant:  	From Representation:         	From Congress member:    

              Other Documentation (Describe):  

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 18, effective 12 December 1997 until
21 August 2002, 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.

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 87, 112a.

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

Applicant’s Issues

1.  Desires to reenlist in the US Army.
2.  Youth and immaturity.
3.  Post service conduct.

Decision

Date:  20081009		Location:  Washington D.C.	Representation:  

By a vote of  the Characterization shall  .
By a vote of  the Narrative Reason shall  MISCONDUCT (PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT).

Discussion

:   either  which the Board cannot form the basis of relief for the Applicant, or  the Board does not have the authority to grant the relief for which the Applicant petitioned.  The Applicant is directed to the Addendum, specifically the paragraph concerning  s, regarding .

:  ()  .  The Applicant contends his youth and immaturity were the reasons for his lack of integrity while serving in the U. S. Navy.  He is now mature and committed to our country and desires to serve in the U. S. Army.  In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of Government affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the Applicant.  The Applicant’s record of service was marred by one retention warning, two NJP’s and one SCM for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ):  Article 86 (UA), Article 87 (Missing movement), Article 92 (Failure to obey order/regulation), Article 112a (Drug use, LSD), and Article 134 (Breaking restriction).  Violations of Articles 87 and 112a are considered serious offenses, punishable by a punitive discharge and up to two years imprisonment if adjudged as part of the sentence upon conviction by a special or general court-martial.  The command did not pursue a punitive discharge but opted instead for an administrative discharge.  While the Applicant may feel his immaturity was the underlying cause of his misconduct, it was noted he was over 20 years old when his misconduct occurred and his misconduct was not impulsive but premeditated.  The record clearly reflects by his repeated periods of UA and use of LSD, his conduct was willful and deliberate.  The record does not demonstrate the Applicant was not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions due to youth or immaturity.

The Applicant has requested a characterization upgrade to either a “General (Under Honorable Conditions) or an “Honorable”.  For the edification of the Applicant, when a Sailor’s service has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service under honorable conditions.  A “General (Under Honorable Conditions)” is appropriate if the member’s service has been honest and faithful, but significant negative aspects of the member’s conduct or performance outweighs positive aspects of the member’s military record.  An “Under Other than Honorable Conditions” is appropriate when the basis for separation is commission or omission of an act that constitutes a significant departure from the conduct expected of a service member.  Based on the above behavior and the Applicant’s total and repeated disregard for US Navy values, the Board acknowledged the characterization of “Under Other Than Honorable Conditions” was appropriate and determined an upgrade or change would be inappropriate.

:  ()  .  The Applicant states he is mature and now has poise and character.  He claims he made a mistake and deserves a second chance.  The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge.  However, there is no law or regulation which provides an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time, or good conduct in the civilian life subsequent to leaving the service.  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.  The key word here is 

“Outstanding.  The Board is looking for actions that go beyond simply daily living.  Documentation to help support a post service conduct upgrade includes, but is not limited to: a verifiable continuous employment record; 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 company’s, or other financial institutions; documentation of a drug free lifestyle; and character witness statements.  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 conduct mitigates the reason for the characterization of discharge. 

The Applicant did not provide a personal statement, supporting documentation of post service accomplishments or character witness statements to support his request for an upgrade.  To warrant a characterization upgrade the Applicant's efforts need to be more encompassing.  For example, the Applicant could have provided evidence of a verifiable employment record, documentation of community/church service, evidence of a drug free existence, and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities, evidence of financial stability; statements from his references, marriage or birth certificates, a copy of his college transcripts/diploma or training certificates and contact information for his recruiter.  Without having the necessary documentation to review, the Board determined an upgrade or change would be inappropriate at this time.

After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Medical and Service Record Entries, Discharge Process, the Board found  

ADDENDUM:  Information for the Applicant

Complaint Procedures:  If you believe that 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:  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.  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.  If a former member has been discharged for more than 15 years, has already been granted a personal appearance hearing or has otherwise exhausted his opportunities before the NDRB, the Applicant may petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR), 2 Navy Annex, Washington, DC 20370-5100 for further review.

Service Benefits:  The Veterans Administration determines eligibility for post-service benefits, not the Naval Discharge Review Board.  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 Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment or educational opportunities.  Regulations limit the Board’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 Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) can make changes to reenlistment codes.  Additionally, the Board 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 subsequently is processed for an administrative involuntary separation or is referred to a court martial for misconduct, the disability evaluation is suspended.  The Physical Evaluation Board case remains in suspense pending the outcome of the non-disability proceedings.  If the action includes either a punitive or administrative discharge for misconduct, 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 Board for Correction of Naval Records can grant this type of narrative reason change.

Automatic Upgrades - There is no law or regulation, which provides that an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving Naval service.  The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge 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.  Examples of documentation that may be provided to the Board include proof of educational pursuits, verifiable employment records, documentation of community service, credible evidence of a substance free lifestyle and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities.

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 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