ex-CMCA, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received:  20080926
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)	19990120 - 19990202  	Active:	

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment:  19990203	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Extension
Date of Discharge:  20020422	Highest Rank/Rate:  CMCN
Length of Service:   Years     Months   20 Days
Education Level:  	AFQT:  45
Evaluation Marks:  Performance:  NFIR

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

Periods of UA/CONF:  NONE

NJP:  
- 20000921:	Article 86 (UA, absent from unit without authorization); Extracted from NAVPERS 1070/613, Administrative Remarks and NAVPERS 1070/604, Awards.
	Awarded:  RIR Suspended:  NFIR

- 20010815:	Article 134 (Making and uttering worthless checks by dishonorably failing to maintain funds); Extracted from NAVPERS 1070/613, Administrative Remarks and NAVPERS 1070/604, Awards.
	Awarded:  RIR Suspended:  NFIR

SCM:     SPCM:     CC:  

Retention Warning Counseling:  

- 19990204:	For fraudulent induction (Fare Evasion, 199812xx, Brooklyn, NY, 8 hrs community Service)

- 20000921:	For VUCMJ, Article 86, absent from unit without authorization

- 20010816:	For VUCMJ, Article 134, making and uttering worthless checks by dishonorably failing to maintain funds

- 20020305:	For failure to pay just debts: non-payment to Consumer Adjustment Corp. for a debt incurred 20010618

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

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

	  “JKA”
	  “PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT”

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:   Army National Guard LOR and other promotion and training documents

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.

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

Applicant’s Issues

1.  Request RE Code changed for reenlistment purposes.
2.  Discharge erroneously suggests not supporting dependents and misconduct.
3.  Post service conduct.   

Decision

Date:  20099205		Location:  Washington D.C.	Representation:  

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

Discussion

:  The Applicant is requesting his RE Code to be upgraded in order to return to active duty in the Navy.   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 , for additional information regarding .

:  ()  .  The Applicant contends his discharge is inequitable because it falsely suggests he was not supporting his dependents and committed misconduct.  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 4 retention warnings for fraudulent induction, unauthorized absence, making and uttering worthless checks, and failure to pay just debt to Consumer Adjustment Corporation and 2 NJP proceedings for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ):  Article 86 (UA) and Article 134 (Making and uttering worthless checks).  

There was no evidence in the record, nor was any provided by the Applicant, to substantiate the contention regarding the support of his dependents.  However, there was sufficient evidence in the record indicating the Applicant was counseled for failure to pay his debts and committed misconduct as reflected in the NJP’s previously discussed.  Therefore, the Applicant’s contention he did not commit misconduct is without merit.  Based on the evidence of record and evidence submitted by the Applicant the Board determined there was sufficient evidence to support a basis of separation due to a pattern of misconduct.  The Board also concluded an upgrade was not warranted based on the seriousness and frequency of offenses committed by the Applicant and lack of mitigating evidence.

:  ()  .  The Applicant contends since being discharged he has made great strides in his devotion and commitment to the military.  The Applicant also contends he resolved past issues and has been back in the Armed Forces since November 2004.  He provided a character reference from his platoon leader, in-service records and transcripts for the Board’s consideration.  

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.  While the Board applauds the Applicant’s post service efforts, the Board determined the evidence of post-service conduct was not sufficient enough to support an upgrade in his discharge characterization. 

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