ex-FCSN, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20091209
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)	19991118 - 20000814  	Active:	

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment:  20000815	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Extension
Date of Discharge:  20051123	Highest Rank/Rate:  FC3
Length of Service:   Year(s)     Month(s)   09 Day(s)
Education Level:  	AFQT:  80
Evaluation Marks:	NFIR

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	    

Periods of UA/Conf:  NFIR

NJP:  

- 20020508:	Article  (General Article - Cheating on written exam at formal Aegis training school)
	Awarded:     Suspended:   (vacated on 20050514)

- 20020530:	Article  (Absence without leave; specifically, absent from his appointed place of duty)
	Awarded:  CCU 30 days.  Suspended:   
	
- 20030305:	Article  (Absence without leave)
	Article  (Insubordinate conduct)
	Article  (Failure to obey an order)
	Awarded: Bread and water   Suspended:   

- 20051020:	Article  (False official statement in the course of an investigation)
	Article  (Dereliction of duty as a watchstander)
	Awarded:     Suspended:   

SCM:  NONE	SPCM:           CC:  

Retention Warning Counseling:  

- 20020509:	For CO’s NJP results of 20020508

- 20030507:	For CO’s NJP results of 20030503  

- 20030919:	For Physical Readiness Test failure 

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), Change 11, effective 26 April 2005 until 19 May 2008, 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.

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 and 107.  

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

Applicant’s Issues

1.	The Applicant did not identify any issues for consideration.

Decision

Date:  20110311		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 did not identify any issues related to the equity or propriety of his discharge for the NDRB’s consideration.  However, the NDRB completed a thorough review of the circumstances that led to his discharge, and the discharge process, to ensure the discharge met the pertinent standards of equity and propriety.  

The Applicant enlisted at age 18, without any waivers for enlistment qualification standards.  He entered active duty service in the Navy on a 4-year enlistment with a two year extension for enlistment guarantee of Aegis Control Systems ‘A’ school.  The Applicant’s record of service includes three NAVPERS 1070/613 retention-counseling warnings and four nonjudicial punishments for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) as follows: 

•	Article 86 (Absent without leave; specifically 2 separate specification of failure to be at appointed place of duty or failure to go to appointed place of duty)
•	Article 91 (Insubordinate conduct toward warrant, noncommissioned, petty officer) 
•	Article 92 (1 specification of failure to obey a lawful order or regulation and 1 specification of dereliction of duty)
•	Article 107 (False official statements)
•	Article 134 (General Article – cheating on Aegis system exam at formal school).
 
The Applicant’s record of service contains no punitive punishment as adjudicated by a trial by court-martial.  

On 24 October 2005, the Applicant was notified by his command that they were recommending he be separated administratively from the Naval Service with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) characterization of service for misconduct.  He was notified - via dual notification procedure - of the following proposed reasons for separation: Misconduct (Pattern of Misconduct) and Misconduct (Commission of a Serious Offense) as established by Article 1910-140 and Article 1910-142 of the Naval Military Personnel Manual (MILPERSMAN).  The NDRB reviewed the Applicant’s administrative discharge package to ensure the Applicant was afforded his rights in accordance with the MILPERSMAN.  When notified of administrative separation using the administrative separation processing notification procedure, the Applicant elected his right to consult with a qualified counsel while waiving his right to request a General Court Martial Convening Authority review or to submit written matters to the Separation Authority.  The Applicant did not warrant the right to request a hearing before an administrative board.   

: (Board Review) ()  .  The Applicant did not submit any issues for consideration by the NDRB; however, the NDRB completed a thorough review of the circumstances that led to his discharge, and the discharge process, to ensure the discharge met the pertinent standards of equity and propriety.  In reviewing discharges, the NDRB 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 provided no documentation to the board to rebut the government’s presumption of regularity.

Whenever a Sailor is involved in misconduct, as described in Articles 1910-140 and 1910-142 of the MILPERSMAN, commanders are directed to process the sailor for separation, unless rehabilitation and retention are warranted.  The characterization of service for misconduct normally shall be Under Other Than Honorable Conditions, but a characterization of General (Under Honorable Conditions) may be warranted in some circumstances.  Moreover, despite a Sailor’s prior record of service, certain serious offenses, even though isolated, warrant separation from the naval service in order to maintain proper order and discipline.  The charge specified against the Applicant – violation of Article 92 and 107 of the UCMJ – are serious offenses, punishable by punitive discharge and confinement, if adjudged by a special or general court-martial.  The Applicant’s command opted not to pursue the punitive discharge for the violations of the UCMJ, instead choosing the more lenient nonjudicial punishment and administrative discharge process as the appropriate forum to address the Applicant’s misconduct.  

In regards to propriety, the Applicant’s initial non-judicial punishment, followed by two NAVPERS 1070/613 retention-counseling warnings, which were violated as evidenced by three subsequent NJPs, properly satisfied the requirements established for separation based on a demonstrated pattern of misconduct pursuant to Article 1910-140 of the MILPERSMAN.  Furthermore, the violation of Article 92 and Article 107 of the UCMJ, both of which warrant a Bad Conduct Discharge if adjudged in trial by courts martial, meets the requirement for separation based on the commission of a serious offense.  The Separation Authority determined that the preponderance of the evidence supported both reasons for discharge and that separation from the Naval Service was warranted; as such, he directed that the Applicant be separated and that the basis for separation on the DD Form 214 be Pattern of Misconduct.  The Separation Authority further determined that the Applicant should be discharged with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) characterization of his service and that he receive an RE-4 reenlistment code (not recommended for reenlistment).  The NDRB found no issue of impropriety; as such, an upgrade in characterization of service or change to the narrative reason for separation based on propriety would be inappropriate.  No relief provided.

Characterization of service is founded on the recognition of a Sailor’s performance and conduct, and is not necessarily dependent upon the narrative reason for separation.  When the quality of a member’s service has met the standards of accepted conduct and performance of duty for military personnel, it is appropriate to characterize that service under Honorable conditions.  A General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge is appropriate if the member’s service has been honest and faithful, but significant negative aspects of the member’s conduct or performance outweigh the positive aspects of the member’s military record.

The NDRB determined that the Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the characterization of his service, was honest and faithful, but that significant negative aspects of the member’s conduct or performance outweighed the positive aspects of the member’s military record.  As such, the awarded characterization of service as, issued, was equitable and was consistent with the characterization of discharge given others in similar circumstances.  The NDRB determined that the characterization of service at discharge was appropriate as issued and that an upgrade would be inappropriate; accordingly, no relief is provided.

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.

Summary:  After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service,  record entries, and discharge process, 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 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