ex-LT, USN 

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received:  20081210
Characterization of Service Received:  
Narrative Reason for Discharge:  (OTHER)
Authority for Discharge:  CNPC Millington tn msg r211135zdec06

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

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive: USNR (DEP)	19940829 - 19980516  	Active:	19900718 – 19940828 (HON)

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment:  19980517	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:  N/A
Date of Discharge:  20070129	Highest Rank/Rate:  LT
Length of Service:   Year(s)     Month(s)   13 Day(s)
Education Level:  	AFQT:  NFIR         Fitness Reports:  

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):   (4)     JSCM ACM

NJP:  
- 20051007:	Article 92 (Disobedience of a lawful order and dereliction in the performance of duties)
	Awarded:     Suspended:  

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

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

	  “98 MAY 17”
	  “08 08 13”
	Block 12d, Total Prior Active Service, should read: “04 01 11”
  “KFF”

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:  

Detached for Cause (DFC) and Discharge Process

20050930:	Commanding Officer, USS CORPUS CHRISTI submitted a DFC on the Applicant due to unsatisfactory performance of duty for an extended period of time.

20051007:	NJP -- Viol UCMJ Art. 92 - Disobedience of a lawful order and dereliction in the performance of his duties.
	Awarded – Punitive letter of Reprimand.

200510 (date NA): Applicant appealed NJP.

20051103:	 Submarine Group 7  Applicant’s NJP appeal.

20051130:	 Submarine Squadron 15 submitted Report of  to Commander, Navy Personnel Command recommending Applicant  for retention.

20051228:	Applicant responded to Report of .

20060126: 	Applicant submitted a redress of wrongs under provisions of Article 138 of the UCMJ, which was subsequently denied.

20060131:	Applicant appealed NJP for the second time, and was subsequently denied.

20060205: 	Applicant submitted a second redress of wrongs under provisions of Article 138 of the UCMJ, which was subsequently denied.

20060313:	 Submarine Squadron 15 recommended disapproval of Applicant's request and endorsed his complaint to Commander, Submarine Group 7.

20060301:	Commander, Submarine Force Pacific endorsed the report of NJP, concurred with the DFC, but did not concur with show cause for retention.

20060314:	Commander, Navy Personnel Command (CNPC), approved the DFC and notified Applicant of requirement to show cause for retention in response to the report of NJP.

20060316:	Commander, Submarine Group 7 denied Applicant’s second redress of wrongs.

20060408:	Applicant acknowledged notification of show cause for retention and elected to appear before a Board of Inquiry.

20060801:	Applicant submitted an unqualified resignation, but it did not comply with CNPC direction and was, therefore, considered to be a qualified resignation.

20061205:	Commander, Navy Personnel Command, recommended to the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) that  with characterization of service as General (Under Honorable Conditions) by reason of misconduct. 

20061211:	Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) approved Applicant’s discharge by reason of misconduct, with characterization of service as General (Under Honorable Conditions).

20070129:	Applicant discharged this date.			

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

Applicant’s Issues

1.  No negative remarks or misconduct to warrant a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge.

Decision

Date:  20090326		Location:  Washington D.C.	Representation:  

By a vote of  the Characterization shall  .
By a vote of  the Narrative Reason shall  SECRETARIAL AUTHORITY.

Discussion

:  ()  .  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 NJP for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ):  Article 92 (Disobedience of a lawful order and dereliction in the performance of his duties) and was issued a punitive letter of reprimand.  The Applicant was also made subject of a Detached for Cause (DFC) due to unsatisfactory performance of duty for an extended period of time.  After a lengthy appeal process the Commander, Navy Personnel Command, recommended to the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower and Reserve Affairs), (ASN (M&RA)), the Applicant be discharged from the Navy with a characterization of “General (Under Honorable Conditions)”.  The ASN (M&RA) subsequently approved the request.   A time line is provided above, reflective of the DFC and discharge process for this case. 

The Applicant contends there are no negative remarks or misconduct in his service record to warrant a “General (Under Honorable Conditions)” characterization.  The Applicant applied to the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) to remove his NJP, DFC, and the recoupment of his submarine duty pay.  The BCNR found the Applicant’s request to remove his NJP and DFC warranted relief and recommended the Applicant’s naval record be corrected by removing the NJP and DFC; additionally, that any material or entries inconsistent with or relating to the BCNR’s recommendation be corrected, removed or completely expunged from the Applicant’s record and that no such entries be added to the record in the future.  The BCNR found recoupment of submarine duty pay did not warrant relief.

Based on the BCNR decision to remove the NJP and the DFC, which was the basis for separation, from the Applicant’s record of service, the NDRB voted unanimously to upgrade the discharge characterization to “Honorable” and change the narrative reason to Secretarial Authority.  In addition, the NDRB recommends the Applicant’s separation code (block 26 of DD Form 214) be changed to reflect the BCNR’s decision.

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   

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 1920.6C (ADMINISTRATIVE SEPARATION OF OFFICERS), effective 15 December 2005 until Present, establishes policies, standards and procedures for the administrative separation of Navy and Marine Corps officers from the naval service in accordance with Title 10, United States Code and DoD Directive 1332.30 of 14 March 1997.

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 92.

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