ex-HM2, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20100127
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)	NONE	Active:	  19940825 – 19970720   HON

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment:  19970721	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Extension
Date of Discharge:  20021122	Highest Rank/Rate:  HM2
Length of Service:   Year(s)     Month(s)   01 Day(s)
Education Level:  	AFQT:  62
Evaluation Marks:	Performance:  4.5 (2)	Behavior:  2.5 (2)	OTA:  3.50

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

Periods of UA/CONF:  

NJP:  	SCM:  	SPCM:  

CC:  

- 20020314:	Offense:  Indecent exposure to a minor
	Sentence:  6 months jail, suspended for 2 years on condition of uniform good behavior; pay court costs; and no contact with victim.

Retention Warning Counseling:  

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

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

	  “CONTINUOUS HONORABLE ACTIVE SERVICE FROM 940825 UNTIL 970720”
	
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 1910-142, 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 120.  

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

Applicant’s Issues

1.	Decisional issues: The Applicant contends that his discharge characterization of service was inequitable, because the Commanding Officer disregarded the recommendation of the administrative discharge hearing board.  Furthermore, the Applicant contends that the discharge ended an exemplary 7-year career; as such, his service warrants a characterization as Honorable.

Decision

Date:  20110331		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 NDRB 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 one decisional issue for the NDRB’s consideration; additionally, the NDRB completed a thorough review of the circumstances that led to the Applicant’s discharge, and the discharge process, to ensure the discharge met the pertinent standards of equity and propriety.  

The Applicant’s record of service reflects entry into the military without any waivers to enlistment standards.  He enlisted at age 21 as an E-1 with a three-year contract under the Seaman Apprenticeship Program.  The Applicant’s service record reflects completion of an honorable enlistment with an immediate reenlistment on 20 July 1997.  The Applicant completed five years and four months of service on his last enlistment period; he was involuntarily separated prior to the end of his enlistment period due to Misconduct (Commission of a Serious Offense) as defined in Article 1910-142 of the Naval Military Personnel Manual (MILPERSMAN).    

During his enlistment period, the Applicant received no NAVPERS 1070/613 retention-counseling warnings and no nonjudicial punishments.  However, the Applicant was convicted in the General District Court of Norfolk, VA for misdemeanor Indecent Exposure to a child under the age of 16.  In accordance with Article 1910-142 of the MILPERSMAN, processing for separation is mandatory for any deviant sexual behavior (lewd and lascivious acts; forcible heterosexual sodomy; indecent assault, acts, and/or exposure; or any child sexual abuse, possession of child pornography, or incestuous relationships).  As the Applicant was convicted in a civilian court of indecent exposure on 14 March 2002, processing for separation was mandatory.     

The Applicant was notified - in writing - of the Commanding Officer’s recommendation for administrative separation on 5 July 2002.  The Applicant was advised that he was being processed under a dual basis for separation: Misconduct (Commission of a Serious Offense) and Misconduct (Civilian Conviction) in accordance with Articles 1910-142 and 1910-144 of the MILPERSMAN.  The Command further advised the Applicant that the least favorable characterization of service he could receive at discharge was an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions.  The NDRB reviewed the Applicant’s administrative separation package; the Applicant acknowledged - in writing - that he understood that the least favorable characterization of service at discharge was Under Other Than Honorable Conditions.  Furthermore, he elected to exercise his right to consult with qualified legal counsel, to present his issues before an administrative discharge board, and to submit written matters for the Separation Authority’s consideration.  

On 03 September 2002, a properly appointed administrative separation board was convened in accordance with the Applicant’s election of rights.  The Applicant was present and was represented by qualified legal counsel.  By a vote of 3-0, the administrative discharge board determined that a preponderance of the evidence supported a finding of Misconduct and Civilian Conviction; however, the discharge board determined that retention was warranted.  The results of the board were forwarded to the Commanding Officer.  The Commanding Officer did not agree with the finding of retention.  Based on the nature of the misconduct and the seriousness of the offense, he recommended that the Applicant be separated from the Naval Service.  In accordance with Article 1910-704 of the MILPERSMAN, the discharge package and discharge board transcripts were forwarded to the Commander, Navy Personnel Command (COMNAVPERSCOM) with the Commanding Officer’s recommendation for separation.  On 01 November 2002, COMNAVPERSCOM provided approval for the Applicant’s discharge via naval message traffic, directing that the Applicant be discharged with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) characterization of his service and that the narrative reason for separation be Misconduct (Commission of a Serious Offense).  He further directed that the Applicant receive a reentry code of RE-4 (not recommended for reenlistment).  In accordance with Article 1910-704, the Applicant was provided a copy of the naval message and was advised that a statement of reason for the Secretary of the Navy’s decision to discharge the Applicant was available, upon request, from NAVPERS-832.           

:  (Decisional) ()  .  The Applicant contends that his discharge characterization of service was inequitable, because the Commanding Officer disregarded the recommendation of the administrative discharge hearing board.  Furthermore, the Applicant contends that the discharge ended an exemplary 7-year career; as such, his service warrants a characterization as Honorable.

The NDRB completed a thorough review of the circumstances that led to the Applicant’s discharge, and the discharge process, to ensure the discharge met the pertinent standards of equity and propriety.  In accordance with the MILPERSMAN, service members may be separated based on the commission of a serious military or civilian offense when the Commanding Officer believes the specific circumstances of the offense warrant separation and that the offense would warrant a punitive discharge if adjudicated at trial by court-martial for the same or closely related military offense.  Violation of Article 120 (Indecent Exposure) of the UCMJ warrants punitive discharge and confinement for up to one year, if adjudicated at trial by special or general court-martial.  Therefore, the requirement for consideration as a serious offense for separation was met.  The Applicant’s Commanding Officer disagreed with the administrative discharge board’s finding for retention.  In accordance with Article 1910-704 of the MILPERSMAN, “When an administrative board finds that a preponderance of the evidence supports one or more of the reasons for separation and recommends retention, but the Separation Authority recommends separation, refer to SECNAV for determination.”  The Separation Authority recommended separation and in accordance with regulations, submitted his recommendation to the Secretary of the Navy for a determination.  The Secretary of the Navy directed the Applicant be discharged for Misconduct and directed the characterization of service at discharge.     

Despite a servicemember’s prior record of service, certain serious offenses, even though isolated, warrant separation from the Naval Service in order to maintain good order and discipline of the service.  The Misconduct the Applicant was convicted of in civilian court required mandatory processing for separation.  The Applicant was afforded the opportunity to seek legal counsel and to present his case before a properly convened administrative discharge board.  The Separation Authority reviewed the evidence of record and the board’s findings; however, he disagreed with the board’s finding of retention based on the gravity of the misconduct and forwarded a recommendation for separation to the Secretary of the Navy for determination.  
  
An Honorable characterization of service is warranted when the quality of a member’s service generally meets the standard of acceptable conduct and performance for naval personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization of service would be clearly inappropriate.  A General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge is warranted when the quality of the member’s service has been honest and faithful, but significant negative aspects of the member’s conduct or performance of duty outweighed the positive aspects of the member’s service record.

Based on a review of the evidence and the circumstances unique to this case, the NDRB determined that the Applicant’s misconduct properly satisfied the requirements established for separation based on Misconduct (Commission of a Serious Offense) as the basis for discharge.  As such, the NDRB determined there was no impropriety due to an error of fact, law, procedure, or discretion with the discharge.  Accordingly, relief based on propriety is denied.  Based on the Applicant’s record of service and the serious nature of the misconduct, the NDRB determined that the quality of the member’s service had been honest and faithful, but significant negative aspects of his conduct or performance of duty outweighed the positive aspects of his service record.  This constituted a significant departure from the conduct expected of members of the Naval Service.  As such, after a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the NDRB discerned no inequity in the characterization of the Applicant’s service at discharge.  The NDRB’s vote was unanimous that an upgrade is not appropriate and that relief is not warranted; therefore, the character of the discharge shall not change.  Relief denied.

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