ex-ABH3, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20090304
Characterization of Service Received:  
Narrative Reason for Discharge:  (SERIOUS OFFENSE)
Authority for Discharge:  MILPERSMAN 

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

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive:	USNR (DEP)	19960830 - 19961126  	Active:	 	19961127 - 20000323  
					20000324 - 20050421  
					20050422 - 20071010  

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment:  20071011	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Extension
Date of Discharge:  20081010	Highest Rank/Rate:  ABH2
Length of Current Enlistment:   Year(s)     Month(s)   00 Day(s)
Education Level:  	AFQT:  34
Evaluation Marks:	Performance:  3.0 (1)	Behavior:  3.0 (1)	OTA:  3.29

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	Rifle          (3)

Periods of UA/CONF:  

NJP:  
- 20080910:	Article 89 (Disrespect toward a superior commissioned officer)
	Article 91 (Insubordinate conduct toward a superior noncommissioned officer)
	Awarded:    Suspended:  

SCM:            SPCM:           CC:  

Retention Warning Counseling:  

- 200080911:	For disrespect to a commissioned officer and disrespect to a noncommissioned officer.

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

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

	 Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, should read:  “NATIONAL DEFENSE SERVICE MEDAL, NAVY RIFLE RIBBON (EXPERT), ARMED FORCES EXPEDITIONARY MEDAL, SEA SERVICE DEPLOYMENT RIBBON, COAST GUARD MERITORIOUS UNIT COMMENDATION, NAVY “E” RIBBON, GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM SERVICE MEDAL, NAVY GOOD CONDUCT MEDAL (3), NAVY AND MARINE CORPS ACHIEVEMENT MEDAL, NAVY PISTOL (MARKSMAN)”

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:  

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 11, effective 26 April 2005 until Present, 
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 89 (Disrespect toward a superior commissioned officer) and Article 91 (Insubordinate conduct toward a noncommissioned officer).  

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

Applicant’s Issues

1.  The discharge is a disgrace to the 12 years of naval service and defense of the President of the United States, the White House, First Lady, United States Navy (USN), Pentagon, Secretary of Defense, etc.
2.  False information placed in his medical record. 

Decision

Date:  20090625      	Location:  Washington D.C.	Representation:  

By a vote of  the Characterization shall  .
By a vote of  the Narrative Reason shall  MISCONDUCT (SERIOUS OFFENSE).

Discussion

:.  ()  .  The Applicant contends his discharge has been a disgrace to his 12 years of naval service.  The Applicant further contends he has defended the President of the United States (hereinafter “President”), the White House, Pentagon, FBI, CIA, FBI, USN, and alleges that he was beat down in a training room and locked in a room for three days for defending the First Lady.  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 NDRB, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge, is authorized to change the character of service and/or the reason for discharge if such change is warranted.  

The Applicant’s record of service was marred by one retention warning and one NJP for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice: Article 89 (Disrespect toward a superior commissioned officer) and Article 91 (Insubordinate conduct toward a noncommissioned officer).  Furthermore, per Naval Air Station Whiting Field letter 1910 Ser N00J (undated), the Commanding Officer indicated the following:  1) the Applicant’s issues began in March 2008 when he became belligerent toward his leading petty officer after a discussion about the Applicant’s estranged wife—who claimed he threatened to kill her and cut her up;  2) the Applicant accepted a psychiatric screening and, after several visits the psychiatrist, it was determined that he had delusional tendencies—but was not mentally ill or a harm to himself or others;  3) in July 2008, the command received CIA notification and request for evaluation of the Applicant after he sent more than 30 emails to the CIA’s public website in a two-month period;  4) during a meeting with the Applicant, it was determined that he had falsely claimed connections with a national intelligence agency and had falsely represented himself to outside federal agencies as a command representative of the Naval Air Station Whiting Field;  5) the Applicant was ordered to cease these actions and cautioned that sending gifts to the President or President’s family members, which he had previously done, could be a violation of the Joint Ethics Regulations.  6) that the Applicant informed the unit’s operations officer of his intent to mail a tea set to the President, in violation of the previously mentioned order, became disrespectful when confronted, and was sent to NJP;  7) the Applicant’s disrespect and defiance to authority figures grew, and he mailed his restricted access badge to the President and burned a second badge;  8) as a result of the Applicant’s continued misconduct, he was administratively processed for separation due to misconduct - commission of serious offenses.  The Applicant was notified of the administrative separation processing as outlined in the Notification Board Procedure Notice of 01 October 2008 and waived all of his rights except the right to consult with qualified counsel and obtain copies of all documents forwarded to the separation authority.  The Applicant was subsequently discharged with a characterization of General (Under Honorable Conditions).

There is no evidence in the record or provided by the Applicant to support any of his contentions regarding his direct support or defense of the previously mentioned senior government officials, their families or government property, or that he was mistreated or illegally confined by personnel within the chain of command or others.  The NDRB determined the preponderance of the evidence demonstrating the Applicant’s disrespectful behavior, lack of respect and open defiance of authority, and blatant disregard for orders not to sent gifts to the President or his family supports the basis for discharge due to commission of serious offenses, and that the Applicant’s separation from the Naval service was appropriate.
: ()  .   The Applicant further contends the Naval Air Station Whiting Field Medical personnel placed false information regarding terrorist organizations in his medical record.  The medical records in question were not provided to the Board by the Applicant or contained in his official record.  Even if the medical records were available, the Board does not have the authority to correct medical records or remove information.  If the Applicant is in disagreement with language in his medical record he may seek relief from the originator of the document or seek redress from the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR).  The Applicant is directed to the Addendum, specifically the paragraph concerning Additional Reviews for the BCNR’s address.

Summary:  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   Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall remain General (Under Honorable Conditions) and the narrative reason for separation shall remain Misconduct (Serious Offense).

The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing for a period of fifteen years from the date of his discharge.  The Applicant is directed to the Addendum, specifically the paragraphs titled Additional Reviews and Automatic Upgrades.

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 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 Board for Correction of Naval Records (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 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 NDRB 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 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