ex-SN, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received:  20080826
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: USNR (DEP) 20020621 - 20020917  	Active:  

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment:  20020918	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Extension
Date of Discharge:  20050420     	Highest Rank/Rate:  SN
Length of Service:   Years     Months   03 Days
Education Level:  	AFQT:  32
Evaluation Marks:  Performance:  2.0 (1)                 Behavior:  1.0 (1)           OTA:  2.50

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):      

Periods of UA/CONF:      SCM:      SPCM:      CC:      Retention Warning Counseling:  

NJP:  
- 20030421:  Article 128 (Assault), 2 specifications
                     Awarded:    Suspended:  

- 20030924:  Article 86 (UA)
                     Article 92 (Failure to obey a lawful order), 2 specifications
                     Awarded:    Suspended:  

- 20031113:  Article 86 (UA), 4 specifications
                     Awarded: 3 DAYS BW   Suspended:  

- 20041203:  Article 128 (Assault), 2 specifications
                     Awarded:       Suspended:     Vacated 20050304

- 20050304:  Article 92 (Failure to obey a lawful order)
                     Article 91 (Disobey an order)
                     Awarded:   Suspended:  

- 20050320:  Article 86 (UA), 2 specifications
                     Awarded:      Suspended:  

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:  

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

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

	  “1910-142”
	
The NDRB will recommend to the Commander, Navy Personnel Command, that the DD 214 be corrected as appropriate.

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), re-issued October 2002, effective 22 August 2002 until 25 April 2005, 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 91 (Willfully disobey an order); Article 92 (Failure to obey  a lawful order); and Article 128 (Assault).

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

Applicant’s Issues

1.  Seeking to take advantage of the GI Bill and possibly reenlist.
2.  Discharge too severe, he did not willfully disobey orders or use drugs.

Decision

Date:  20081211   	Location:  Washington D.C.	Representation:  

By a vote of  the Characterization shall  .
By a vote of  the Narrative Reason shall  MISCONDUCT.

Discussion

:  The Applicant is seeking an upgrade in the characterization of service in order to utilize the GI Bill and possibly reenlist if his reentry code is changed.   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 paragraphs concerning  and Reenlistment/RE Code, for additional information regarding .

:  ()  .  The Applicant is seeking an upgrade based on his belief the discharge was severe in that he committed minor offenses and did not willfully disobey commands or use drugs.  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 service was marred by the award of 6 NJP’s for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 86 (UA), 6 specifications); Article 91 (Willfully disobey an order); and Article 92 (Failure to obey an order or regulation), 3 specifications.  These offenses, with the exception of the UA are serious offenses as defined in the UCMJ, and conviction at a special or general court-martial for violation of any of these offenses could result in a punitive discharge and confinement.  The evidence of record reflects the Applicant was awarded NJP on 04 March 2005 for violation of the UCMJ, Article 91 (Willfully disobeying an order to remove his cover while on the mess deck).  Thus, the Applicant’s statement that he committed minor offenses is without merit and contradicted by the evidence of record.  The evidence is also contrary to the Applicant’s statement he did not willfully disobey commands.  

In regard to the Applicant’s denial of drug use, the record reflects on 17 March 2005 the Applicant was notified of administrative separation based on misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct - commission of a serious offense (in accordance with MILPERSMAN 1910-142); he was subsequently discharged for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense.  However, the Applicant’s DD-214 reflects MILPERSMAN 1910-146 (Drug abuse), which is in error.  Therefore, the Board has determined the Applicant’s denial of drug use is supported by the evidence and an administrative change has been requested to change the separation authority to reflect the discharge authority as authorized by the Commander, Navy Personnel Command (i.e., “1910- 142”, Commission of a serious offense).  

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 during Board reviews.  Documentation to help support a post service conduct upgrade includes, but is not limited to: a verifiable continuous employment record; marriage and children’s birth certificate (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; 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 previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member’s overall character.

It was noted the Applicant indicated in section 8, of the DD Form 293, that a letter of endorsement from his college professor was attached.  However, the received DD Form 293 had no such attachment and it was not a part of any records received.   To warrant an upgrade the Applicant’s post service efforts need to be more encompassing.  The Applicant could have produced additional evidence as stated in the above paragraph with the full understanding completion of these items alone does not guarantee an upgrade.  

The Applicant has requested an upgrade in his discharge characterization to “Honorable”.   An “Honorable” characterization of service is warranted when the quality of a member’s service generally meets the standard of acceptable conduct and performance for naval personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization of service would be clearly inappropriate.  A “General (Under Honorable Conditions)” discharge is warranted when the quality of the member’s service has been honest and faithful but significant negative aspects of the member’s conduct or performance of duty outweighed the positive aspects of the member’s service record.  A discharge “Under Other Than Honorable” conditions is warranted when a member engages in conduct involving one or more acts or omissions that constitute a significant departure from the conduct expected of members of the naval service.  Based on a review of the record, the Board determined there were no mitigating factors in this case to warrant an upgrade.

The Board determined the characterization of service received, “Under Other Than Honorable Conditions”, was an appropriate characterization considering the time served and the UCMJ violations involved, and based on the lack of post service documentation provided 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 submitted by the Applicant, 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 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 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