ex-LT, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20100330
Characterization of Service Received:  
Narrative Reason for Discharge:  UNACCEPTABLE CONDUCT
Authority for Discharge:  SECNAVINST 1920.6B

Applicant’s Request:	Characterization change to:	
	Narrative Reason change to:	ALCOHOL REHABILITATION FAILURE

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive:	USNR (DEP)	19781124 - 19781128  	Active:		19781129 - 19821028  
					19821029 - 19860514  
					19860515 - 19890116  
					19890117 - 19940320  
					19940321 - 19951231  
				USN	19960101 - 20030831 GEN	
					20030901 - 20030930  

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Appointment:  19960101	Age at Enlistment:  
Years Contracted:  Indefinite
Date of Discharge:  20030831	Highest Rank:  LT
Length of Service:   Year(s)     Month(s)   02 Day(s)
Education Level:  
Fitness Reports:  

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	Pistol , NCM (4), NAM (5), NUC, MUC (2), NAVY “E” (5), GCM (5), NEM (3), NDSM (2), AFEM, SSDR (6), OSR (3), FLoC, DPP (5), ESSBI
Periods of UA/CONF:  

NJP:  	SCM:  	SPCM:  

CC ARREST:  

- 20011116:	Charges:  Driving under the influence  (0.18 BAC) and speeding (75/55)

- 20020101:	Charge:  Driving under the influence (0.21 BAC) with aggravating circumstances

CC:  

- 20020130:	Offense:  Count 1:  DUI.  Count 2: DUI/ Dismiss aggravators
	Sentence:  Count 1:  Alcohol/substance abuse counseling, license suspended for 90 days, fine and court cost $583.85  Count 2:  Jail for 90 days to serve 11 days, home incarceration for 30 days, alcohol/substance abuse counseling, license suspended for statutory period, Balance of jail sentence is conditional is suspended for a period of 2 years on condition that Applicant comply with no illegal activity.   Fines and court cost $733.85.  [Details extracted from supporting documents submitted by the Applicant.]

Retention Warning Counseling:  

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

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

	  “SECNAVINST 1920.6B”
	  “SNC”
	  “UNACCEPTABLE CONDUCT”

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.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 1920.6B (ADMINISTRATIVE SEPARATION OF OFFICERS), effective 
13 December 1999 until 14 December 2005 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.

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

Applicant’s Issues

1.	Nondecisional issues: The Applicant seeks changes to his characterization of service in order to be reinstated as a Lieutenant (O3E) and all recalculated retirement back pay due effective the date of his completion of 30 years of service and transfer to the Retired List of the Regular Navy. 

2.	Decisional issues:  (Issue 1) - The Applicant contends that he took responsibility for his actions and anything less than being retired at the highest paygrade held (USN Lieutenant) is a major pay cut, is unfair, and is not consistent with his entire military record of service.  (Issue 2) - The Applicant seeks a change in the narrative reason for separation and the separation program designator to reflect discharge due to alcohol rehabilitation failure, vice misconduct or performance-related narrative reasons.  (Issue 3) - The Applicant contends that his diagnosis of Social Anxiety and mild depression were not mentioned or considered as a matter of mitigation during the BOI; as such, his discharge was overly harsh and inequitable.  (Issue 4) - The Applicant contends that his post-service conduct warrants consideration as it demonstrates that his in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member’s overall character, thus warranting a change in characterization of his service at discharge to honorable.    

Decision

Date:  20110513	           	Location:  Washington D.C.	Representation:  

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

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 a series of specific issues 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 provided extensive documentation to include complete copies of all correspondence with Navy Personnel Command, his Board of Inquiry, and extensive character references and post-service employment references for the NDRB’s consideration. 

The Applicant’s total record of service includes six (6) honorable periods of enlisted service, resulting in retirement as a Master Chief Petty Officer, United Sates Navy, with an Honorable characterization of his enlisted service.  However, the Applicant’s service record also contains a commissioned period of service of 7 years and 8 months as a Limited Duty Officer in the United States Navy.  During this period of commissioned service, the Applicant was arrested twice for exceeding the established legal limits of alcohol in his system while operating a motor vehicle (DUI) in the state of Kentucky. 

The Applicant was commissioned a Limited Duty Officer (Ensign) on 01 January 1996 and was promoted subsequently to the rank of Lieutenant (Junior Grade) and Lieutenant.  On 16 November 2001, while in the rank and capacity of a Lieutenant, United States Navy, the Applicant was stopped by civilian law enforcement authorities for speeding (75 in a 55 MPH zone); after failing a field sobriety test and acknowledging the implied consent law for a breathalyzer test, the Applicant consented to a field breathalyzer test.  The test determined a blood alcohol content (BAC) of 0.160 – exceeding the legal limit for alcohol in his system while operating a motor vehicle.  The Applicant was arrested and received a uniform citation for speeding and a first time offense driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol.  Moreover, on 01 January 2002 (at 1810 hrs), the Applicant was arrested for reckless driving and a second time offense of driving under the influence of alcohol; the Applicant failed a field sobriety test administered by the arresting officer and, after consenting to understanding the implied consent law, submitted to a field breathalyzer test.  The test determined a blood alcohol content (BAC) of 0.214, exceeding the state of Kentucky’s established legal limit for alcohol in his system while operating a motor vehicle.       

Based on the misconduct of record, the Applicant’s command notified the Chief of Naval Personnel of the two arrests.  Additionally, it was reported that the Applicant had completed a Level III Alcohol Rehabilitation Treatment program in 1987 and again in 1992, following self-referral for treatment.  The Applicant’s command recommended further alcohol rehabilitation treatment and a waiver for mandatory administrative separation processing due to alcohol rehabilitation failure.  However, in accordance with Secretary of the Navy Instruction 1920.6B, the Chief of Naval Personnel notified the Applicant that they were initiating administrative separation action, requiring him to show cause for retention in the naval service.  The Applicant was further advised that, although he had completed 20 years of service, he had not completed 10 years of commissioned service and was therefore not eligible to retire in any officer grades.  The Applicant was advised - in writing - that he was being considered for separation from the naval service based on allegations of:
 
a)	Misconduct - commission of a military offense or civilian office, which, if prosecuted under the UCMJ, could be punished by confinement of six months or more; specifically, 
- Violation of Article 111 (Drunken operation of a motor vehicle, 2 separate specifications)
- Violation of Article 133 (Conduct unbecoming an officer)  

b)	Substandard performance of duties, to include:
- Failure to demonstrate acceptable qualities of leadership required of an officer of his grade
- Failure to conform to prescribed standards of military deportment
- Failure to successfully complete alcohol rehabilitation treatment by incurring an alcohol incident after having received alcohol treatment.

The Applicant was advised in writing of his administrative rights in relationship to his requirement to show cause for retention in the naval service.  He was advised that the least favorable outcome that may result in his case was retirement in the highest enlisted paygrade held in which he served satisfactorily - as determined by the Secretary of the Navy.  The Applicant was further advised that he could tender his request for retirement in lieu of appearing before a Board of Inquiry (BOI); he elected to forgo this right and chose to appear in person before a BOI.  The Applicant further elected to consult with qualified legal counsel and was represented by such counsel at his BOI.

On 15 October 2002, a Board of Inquiry in the case of the Applicant was convened.  The Applicant was represented by counsel and was present at the BOI; he presented evidence in support of his issues and testified on his own behalf.  By a vote of 3-0, the BOI determined that a preponderance of the evidence established that the Applicant had committed a military or civilian offense, which, if prosecuted under the UCMJ, could be punished by confinement of six months or more.  Specifically, the BOI determined that the Applicant’s actions were a violation of Article 111 (Drunken operation of a motor vehicle, 2 specifications) and Article 133 (Conduct unbecoming an officer).  Additionally, by a vote of 3-0, the BOI found that the Applicant failed to demonstrate acceptable qualities of leadership required of an officer in his grade, that he failed to conform to prescribed standards of military deportment, and that he failed to successfully complete alcohol rehabilitation treatment by incurring an alcohol incident after having received alcohol treatment.  Based on the findings, by a vote of 3-0, the BOI recommended that the Applicant be separated and that he be retired at the enlisted paygrade of E-9 - the highest enlisted paygrade held in which the Applicant served satisfactorily for a period of not less than six months.

Nondecisional Issues: The Applicant seeks a change to his characterization of service in order to be reinstated as a Lieutenant (O-3E) and seeks repayment of all recalculated retirement back pay due him effective the date of his transfer to the Retired List of the Regular Navy upon completion of 30 years of service.  There is no requirement, or law, that grants re-characterization solely on the issue of obtaining retirement benefits.  As such, this issue does not serve to provide a foundation upon which the Board can grant relief.  Additionally, the NDRB has no authority to effect changes to paygrade, retirement payments, or authorize repayment.  Regulations limit the NDRB’s review solely to a determination of the propriety and the equity of a discharge.    

(Decisional Issue) (Propriety) - .  The Applicant seeks a change in the characterization of his service at discharge, his narrative reason for separation, and the separation program designator; he seeks to have his DD Form 214 reflect discharge for Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure with a commensurate Honorable characterization of his service while commissioned.  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 was afforded all rights due in regards to the administrative separation proceedings of an Officer.  He was notified in writing and acknowledged that notification; he elected counsel and elected an appearance before a Board of Inquiry to show cause for his retention.  Additionally, he was afforded more than ample time in order to prepare his case for the BOI.  

The Applicant was convicted of two separate incidents of driving under the influence of alcohol by civilian authorities; each of these charges is an equivalent violation of Article 111 of the UCMJ and would warrant a punitive discharge and confinement of six or more months, if adjudicated at trial by court-martial.  Furthermore, administrative separation for the commission of a serious offense does not require adjudication by non-judicial or judicial proceedings; however, the offenses must be substantiated by a preponderance of evidence.  The civilian convictions in a court of law meet the threshold requirement to establish a preponderance of the evidence.  As an Officer in the United States Navy, the Applicant was directed to show cause for retention before a BOI.  This board was properly convened and heard the Applicant’s testimony, reviewed the evidence of record, and made its recommendations via the chain of command to the Secretary of the Navy.  In accordance with SECNAVINST 1920.6B, the recommendations of the Board of Inquiry, along with all supporting documentation, was presented to the Secretary of the Navy.  He concurred with the findings and recommendation of the Board of Inquiry and directed that the Applicant be separated from the Navy for Unacceptable Conduct (separation code designator SNC) and that the characterization of his service as a Naval Officer at discharge be General (Under Honorable Conditions).  The Secretary of the Navy further directed that, upon discharge, the Applicant immediately be reenlisted and then immediately retired in the highest enlisted grade honorably held; the BOI determined that rank to be Master Chief (E-9).

Based on a review of the evidence and circumstances unique to this case, the NDRB determined that the Applicant’s misconduct of record properly satisfied the requirements established for separation based on Misconduct (commission of a serious offense and conduct unbecoming an officer) and Substandard Performance of Duties as bases for discharge.  The NDRB determined that the findings of the Board of Inquiry were supported by substantial and credible evidence and that the recommendations of the BOI were warranted.  Moreover, the NDRB determined that the proceedings were conducted fairly and were compliant with SECNAVINST 1920.6B.  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 not warranted.

(Applicant Decisional Issue 1): (Equity) - .  The Applicant contends that he took responsibility for his actions and anything less than being retired at the highest paygrade held is a major pay cut, is unfair, and is not consistent with his entire military record of service.  The Applicant contends that his total record of service was not taken into account in determining his characterization of service at discharge.  Each period of enlistment/commission is an independent obligation and characterization of service is determined for each of those specific periods; furthermore, the characterization of service is determined by the performance and conduct of record - specific to that period.  The misconduct of record and substandard performance of duties occurred during the Applicant’s period of service as a commissioned Limited Duty Officer; as such, that specific period of service in question shall reflect this performance and conduct.  The Applicant’s record of total service includes six other periods of honorable service and an honorable retirement.  Most Applicants with this specific misconduct of record are separated involuntarily and receive an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions characterization of service with Misconduct (Commission of a Serious Offense) as the narrative reason for discharge.  The Applicant received a General (Under Honorable Conditions) characterization of service for Unacceptable Conduct and was allowed to retire honorably as a Master Chief in the United States Navy.  The NDRB discerned no inequity and determined that the Applicant’s extensive periods of honorable service throughout his career, though not required, were considered in determining a General (Under Honorable Conditions) characterization of service and reinstatement as a Master Chief with retirement.
   
 (Applicant Decisional Issue 2): (Propriety/Equity) - .  The Applicant seeks a change in the narrative reason for separation and the separation program designator to reflect discharge due to alcohol rehabilitation failure, vice misconduct or performance-related narrative reasons.  The Applicant was properly notified by the Chief of Naval Personnel to show cause for retention in the naval service.  He was notified that separation was being considered for both the commission of a serious offense - as evidenced by the two convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol - and substandard performance of duties, which also included alcohol rehabilitation treatment failure by incurring an alcohol incident after having received alcohol treatment.  The Applicant exercised his right to present his case before a Board of Inquiry.  By a vote of 3-0, the BOI found that a preponderance of the evidence presented did support a finding that the Applicant committed misconduct (Article 111 and Article 133), that the Applicant failed to demonstrate acceptable qualities of leadership and failed to conform to prescribed standards of military deportment, and that he failed to successfully complete alcohol rehabilitation treatment.  The Secretary of the Navy reviewed the BOI and its appended evidence of record, the Applicant’s past alcohol rehabilitation treatment, and the Applicant’s entire military service record and recommended separation for Unacceptable Conduct.  In accordance with SECNAVINST 1920.6B (Enclosure 3, para 1), “Officers who do not maintain required standards of performance or professional or personal conduct may be disciplined and processed for separation for cause when one or more of the subparagraph circumstances exist.”  In accordance with paragraph 1.a.8., which addresses alcohol rehabilitation failure, “nothing in this provision precludes separation of an officer who has been referred to such a program under any other provision of this instruction in appropriate cases.”  Additionally, paragraph 1.f directs that “an officer shall be processed for separation for all of the aforementioned reasons which are applicable.”  This included not only alcohol rehabilitation failure but also unacceptable conduct.  Based on a review of the evidence and circumstances unique to this case, the NDRB determined there was sufficient evidence to support a basis for discharge due to Unacceptable Conduct and that a change to Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure is not warranted.  Relief denied.

(Applicant Decisional Issue 3): (Equity) - .  The Applicant contends that his diagnosis of Social Anxiety Disorder and mild depression were not mentioned or considered as a matter of mitigation during the BOI; as such, his discharge was overly harsh and inequitable.  The Applicant requested a Board of Inquiry in order to show cause for his retention.  He was present at the BOI and provided sworn testimony for the record in his behalf.  Additionally, both a Defense Counsel and an Assistant Defense Counsel represented the Applicant in preparation for, and during the conduct of, the BOI.  The Applicant was afforded the right to submit any evidence as a respondent exhibit and to have it entered into the record for consideration if he felt it was pertinent to his case to show cause for retention.  The Applicant submitted four exhibits for consideration; all were accepted by the BOI.  Neither the Applicant’s testimony, nor his exhibits, brought forth any issues of Social Anxiety Disorder or mild depression as mitigating factors to the misconduct of record.  Finally, the Applicant submitted a letter to the Show Cause Authority after the BOI and the Defense Counsel submitted a letter of deficiency to the Show Cause Authority; each sought to mitigate or invalidate the BOI results, but neither introduced anxiety or depression issues as mitigating factors.  The NDRB found the Applicant’s issue to be without merit.  Relief denied.

(Applicant Decisional Issue 4): (Equity) - .  The Applicant contends that his post-service conduct warrants consideration as it demonstrates that his in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member’s overall character, thus warranting a change in characterization of his service at discharge to Honorable.  The NDRB considers 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.  The Applicant provided extensive letters of reference and character statements, documentation regarding his employment, education and training, substance abuse treatment, and family and personal status.  The Applicant should be aware submission of these items alone does not guarantee an upgrade from an unfavorable discharge as each discharge is reviewed by the NDRB on a case-by-case basis.  The NDRB determined that the Applicant’s post-service accomplishments do not warrant an upgrade to Honorable.

In accordance with SECNAVINST 1920.6B, an Honorable characterization of service is warranted when the quality of an Officer’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 Officer’s service has been honest and faithful, but significant negative aspects of that Officer’s conduct or performance of duty outweighed the positive aspects of his service record.  The Applicant’s record of service as an LDO contained two civilian convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol.  The Applicant had attended Level III intensive inpatient treatment for his alcohol problems (twice) earlier in his career, and he admitted to having the tools and having access to support networks to help cope with his alcohol problem, yet he failed to use them.  By his own admission, he had been drinking alcohol heavily for at least a year before the DUIs of record occurred, leading to marital discourse and separation.  The Applicant failed to take any action to address his alcohol problem, and he failed to return to seek assistance through provided services or alcohol-support groups.  Furthermore, the Applicant failed to seek treatment or assistance after his first, and then second, arrest for DUI; he further testified at his BOI that he would not currently be attending alcohol support group meetings to help deal with his problem if not for the court-ordered requirement as part of his sentencing.

The foundation of our success in the Navy lies in our ability to gain and hold the trust of our Sailors, including through personal example.  This responsibility is so important that it is written into Navy Regulations.  When confidence and trust are lost in those who lead, we fail.  It is fact that, as Naval Officers, we are held to a higher standard.  Those in leadership roles must exemplify the Navy’s core values of honor, courage, and commitment; we expect our Sailors to follow these values and we hold them accountable when they fail to do so.  Moreover, as a leader, we must be above reproach - our Sailors and Marines deserve nothing less.  In accordance with the U.S. Navy core values, we are required to conduct ourselves in the highest ethical manner in all relationships with peers, superiors, and subordinates and to be honest and truthful in our dealings with each other.  We are to abide by an uncompromising code of integrity, taking responsibility for our actions, and keeping our word and we are to fulfill, or exceed, our legal and ethical responsibilities in both our public and personal lives - twenty-four hours a day.  Furthermore, illegal or improper behavior, or even the appearance of such behavior, will not be tolerated.  As Officers, we are accountable for our professional and personal behavior and are to remain mindful of the honor and privilege to serve.  
           
Having thoroughly reviewed the evidence of record in the Applicant’s official service record, in concert with the extensive documentation provided by the Applicant, the NDRB determined the Applicant’s service was honest and faithful.  However, the NDRB also determined that significant negative aspects of the Officer’s conduct and performance of duties, as outlined in the preceding paragraphs, did outweigh the positive aspects of his service during his commission.  The NDRB determined that the 

Applicant’s civilian convictions, his alcohol rehabilitation failure, and his substandard professional performance of his duties as a Naval Officer outweighed his stellar technical proficiency.  He failed to take personal responsibility and accountability for himself and failed to hold himself to the highest of standards expected of a Naval Officer; his actions did not exemplify the Navy’s core values of honor, courage, and commitment.  After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, letters of endorsement, extensive character references, and the facts and circumstances specific and 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 would not appropriate and that no relief is warranted.  Relief denied.    

Summary:  After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service,  and medical record entries, Board of Inquiry, the discharge process, and the Applicant’s submitted materials for consideration, the NDRB found   Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall   and the narrative reason for separation shall change to UNACCEPTABLE CONDUCT based upon the correction of an administrative error.  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