ex-SKSN, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20091103
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)	  	Active:	 (121993-121997)

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment:  19990730	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Extension
Date of Discharge:  20031010	Highest Rank/Rate:  SK2
Length of Service:   Year(s)     Month(s)   16 Day(s)
Education Level:  	AFQT:  47
Evaluation Marks:	Performance:  3.4 (5)	Behavior:  3.2 (5)	OTA:  3.17 (5)

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	      

Periods of UA/CONF:  

NJP:  

- 20030328:	Article  (Drunken operation of vehicle, o/o 4-5 Feb 2003)
	Article  (Assault consummated by battery, o/o 4-5 Feb 2003)
	Awarded:    Suspended:   (to E-4)

- 20030612:	Article  (Unauthorized absence)
	Article  (False official statement)
	Awarded: NFIR  Suspended:  NFIR

- 20030804:	Article  (Unauthorized absence, 21 Jul 2003)
	Article  (Missing ship’s movement, 21 Jul 2003)
	Awarded:     Suspended:   (to E-2) 

SCM:  	SPCM:  	CC:  

Retention Warning Counseling:  

- Not dated:	For your violation of the UCMJ, Article 111, drunken or reckless operation of a vehicle.

- 20030612:	For your violation of the UCMJ, Article 86 (Failed to go to appointed place of duty) and Article 107 (False official statement).

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:  “NAVY UNIT COMMENDATION RIBBON, MERITORIOUS UNIT COMMENDATION RIBBON, NAVY “E” RIBBON, NATIONAL DEFENSE SERVICE MEDAL, GOOD CONDUCT MEDAL(96DEC28), SEA SERVICE DEPLOYMENT RIBBON, ARMED FORCES EXPEDITIONARY MEDAL, ENLISTED SURFACE WARFARE SPECIALIST”

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:		Rehabilitation/Treatment:		Criminal Records:	
	Personal Documentation:		Community Service:		References:	
	Department of VA letter:		Other Documentation:	
		Additional Statements:
	From Applicant:		From/To Representation:		From/To Congress member:	

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), re-issued October 2002, effective 22 August 2002 until 25 April 2005, 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.	Applicant seeks upgrade to obtain federal government employment.
2.	Applicant contends his command allowed him to miss ship’s movement due to single-parent status and his inability to arrange for childcare.
3.	Applicant claims his misconduct was an isolated incident in more than 3.5 years of service during his current enlistment contract.
4.	Applicant contends his prior honorable service in the U.S. Marine Corps and his personal awards were not considered during his discharge.

Decision

Date:  20101209		Location:  Washington D.C.	Representation:  

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

Discussion

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 the reason for discharge if such change is warranted.  In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the Applicant.  The Applicant identified three decisional issues for the Board’s consideration.  The Board conducted a thorough review of the circumstances that led to  discharge and the discharge process to ensure  discharge met the pertinent standards of equity and propriety.  The Applicant’s record of service included  NAVPERS 1070/613 (Page 13) retention warnings for violations of UCMJ Article 111 (Drunken or reckless operation of a vehicle), Article 86 (Unauthorized absence), and Article 107 (False official statement).  The record also included   for  of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 86 (Unauthorized absence, 2 specifications), Article 87 (Missing ship’s movement), Article 107 (False official statement), Article 111 (Drunken operation of a vehicle), and Article 128 (Assault consummated by battery).  Violation of UCMJ Articles 87, 107, 111, and 128 are each considered serious offenses, which are punishable by up to one year of confinement and a Bad Conduct Discharge if adjudicated by trial at special or general court-martial.  The Applicant’s service records were not complete, but it appears his command did not pursue trial by court-martial and instead opted for the more lenient administrative separation.  The NDRB did not have the Applicant’s administrative separation package to determine whether the Applicant exercised or waived  rights to consult with a qualified counsel, submit a written statement, and request a General Court-Martial Convening Authority review.

:  (Nondecisional) The Applicant seeks an upgrade to obtain federal government employment.  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.

:  (Decisional) ()  .  The Applicant contends his command allowed him to miss ship’s movement due to single-parent status and his inability to arrange for childcare.  In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the Applicant.  The Applicant claims that upon his phone call to the ship to inform them of his inability to report for duty and sail for the five-day period as scheduled, he was told it was okay.  The record contains no mention of this conversation, nor does it contain any record of witness statements, the Applicant’s submission of rebuttal statements to the command, refusal of commanding officer’s NJP and demand for trial by court-martial, or appeal of his NJP punishment.  Further, the Board found it odd that the command would have charged him with two UCMJ violations, Article 86 and Article 87, if the Applicant had in fact been cleared to not report for duty and miss the ship’s movement.  Moreover, the Applicant provided no documentary evidence to the Board to support his claim of impropriety.  After considering the available evidence, the Board presumed regularity and determined this issue did not provide a basis for which relief could be granted.  Relief denied.

Issues 3-4:  (Decisional) ()  .  The Applicant claims his misconduct was an isolated incident in more than 3.5 years of service during his current enlistment contract.  He further contends that his prior honorable service in the U.S. Marine Corps and his personal awards were not considered during his discharge.  Despite a service member’s prior record of service, certain serious offenses warrant separation from the Naval Service in order to maintain proper order and discipline.  Violations of UCMJ Articles 87, 107, 111, and 128 meet this standard.  Though the Applicant’s service records do not contain his administrative separation package, it appears his command did not pursue referring charges on him for trial by court-martial, and instead opted to process him for administrative discharge.  Since an administrative discharge is not punishment, the decision to administratively separate a service member is made independently of and does not require adjudication at trial by courts-martial or Article 15 nonjudicial punishment.  Further, the characterization of service listed on the DD-214 is a description of the total service provided during the member’s current enlistment and does not reflect or consider previous enlistments.  When the service of a member of the Naval Service has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service as Honorable.  The Applicant received a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge, which is warranted when significant negative aspects of a member’s conduct or performance of duty outweigh the positive aspects of the member’s military record.  The NDRB determined that the Applicant’s command did consider his previous performance and awards in recommending him for a General, vice an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions, discharge.  Relief denied.

Summary:  After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service and  record entries, the Board found   Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall   and the narrative reason for separation shall remain .

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

ADDENDUM:  Information for the Applicant

Complaint Procedures:  If you believe 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:  After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application is received at the NDRB within 15 years of the Applicant’s 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.  There are veterans organizations such as the American Legion and the Disabled American Veterans that are willing to provide guidance to former service members in their efforts to obtain a discharge upgrade.  If a former member has been discharged for more than 15 years, has already been granted a personal appearance hearing or has otherwise exhausted their 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 U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determines eligibility for post-service benefits, not the NDRB.  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 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 is processed subsequently for an administrative involuntary separation or is referred to a court martial for misconduct, the disability evaluation is suspended 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 BCNR can grant this type of narrative reason change.

Automatic Upgrades - There is no law or regulation that provides for an unfavorable discharge to be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct subsequent to leaving naval service.

Post-Service Conduct:  The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge.  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 support a post-service conduct upgrade includes, but is not limited to: a verifiable continuous employment record; marriage and children’s birth certificates (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; attendance at or completion of higher education (official transcripts); 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  in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member’s overall character.

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