ex-AMEAN, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20100430
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)	20001128 - 20010123  	Active:	 20010124 - 20041115 HON

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment:  20041116	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Extension
Date of Discharge:  20060314	Highest Rank/Rate:  AME3
Length of Service:   Year(s)     Month(s)   26 Day(s)
Education Level:  	AFQT:  39
Evaluation Marks:	Performance:  1.5 (2)	Behavior:  1.5 (2)	OTA:  1.58

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

Period of UA: 0730, 20060129 - 0631, 20060130 (1 day)

Period of CONF:  

NJP:  
- 20051005:	Article 86 (Absence without leave) 
	Article 107 (False official statement) 
	Awarded:     Suspended:    Vacated 20060303

- 20060303:	Article 86 (Absence without leave 0730, 20060129 to 0600, 20060130) 
	Awarded:   Suspended:  

SCM:  	SPCM:  

CC:  
- 20050912:	Offense:  DUI
	Sentence:  $497.00 fine; attend alcohol awareness program and suspended driver’s license for one year.

Retention Warning Counseling:  
- 20051005:	For failure to comply with the Navy core values and violation of the UCMJ, Article 86 (Unauthorized absence) and Article 107 (Making a false official statement).  

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 010124 UNTIL 041115”
	
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), 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.

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

Applicant’s Issues

1.	Nondecisional issues: The Applicant seeks an upgrade in the characterization of his service at discharge in order to reenlist in the U.S. Army.  

2.	Decisional issues: The Applicant did not identify any issues related to the propriety or equity of his discharge. 

Decision

Date:  20110708	             	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 did not identify any decisional issues related to the propriety or equity of his discharge for the NDRB’s consideration; however, 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 did not provide any documentation for the NDRB’s consideration not already in his official service record or any additional documentation to rebut the presumption of regularity in governmental affairs.    

The Applicant entered military service at age 31 on a four-year enlistment; he honorably completed three years and ten months of his service obligation and was immediately re-enlisted for a new term of four years of obligated service.  The Applicant’s official record of service during his current enlistment period contains one NAVPERS 1070/613 (Page 13) retention-warning counseling regarding violations of the UCMJ.  The Applicant’s service record also contained two nonjudicial punishments for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), specifically, Article 86 (Absent without leave - 2 specifications) and Article 107 (Making a false official statement).  The Applicant’s current service period also documents a civilian conviction for Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol in Chesapeake, Virginia General District Court.

The Applicant was discharged from the Naval Service due to Misconduct, specifically, having established a pattern of misconduct as defined by Article 1910-140 of the Naval Military Personnel Manual (MILPERSMAN).  The Separation Authority reviewed the Applicant’s record of service during his current enlistment period; he determined that the Applicant’s documented misconduct of record did establish the minimum requirement for discharge based on a pattern of misconduct; that separation in the Applicant’s case was warranted; and further, that the proposed characterization of service - General (Under Honorable Conditions) - was warranted.  On 14 March 2006, the Separation Authority directed the Applicant be discharged for the reason as stated and that he receive an RE-4 reenlistment code (not recommended for reenlistment).  The NDRB reviewed the Applicant’s discharge package; the Applicant was notified of separation processing on 06 March 2006.  He was advised that the least favorable characterization of service warranted was General (Under Honorable Conditions).  The Applicant elected to waive his right to consult with qualified counsel and to submit written matters to the Separation Authority for consideration in the discharge action.

(Nondecisional Issue)  -  The Applicant seeks an upgrade in the characterization of his service at discharge in order to reenlist in the U.S. Army.  The NDRB has no jurisdiction or authority over reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Navy, Marine Corps, or any other of the Armed Forces.  A request for a waiver may be submitted during the processing of a formal application for reenlistment through a recruiter; neither a less than fully honorable discharge, nor an unfavorable "RE" code is, in itself, a bar to reenlistment.  Regarding reentry codes, only the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) can make changes to reenlistment codes.  The Applicant may petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records, 2 Navy Annex, Washington, DC 20370-5100, using a DD Form 149, concerning relief in this matter.

(NDRB Review)  ()  .  The Applicant did not identify any Issues for the NDRB’s review in consideration of a re-characterization of his discharge.  However, the NDRB completed a thorough review of the circumstances that led to the discharge action, and the discharge process, to ensure the discharge met the pertinent standards of equity and propriety.

Propriety - The Applicant was discharged from the Naval Service due to having established a pattern of misconduct as defined by Article 1910-140 of the MILPERSMAN.  Based upon the available service records, nothing indicates that the Applicant’s discharge was in any way inconsistent with the standards of discipline in the United States Navy.  The Applicant received a retention counseling warning after his first documented misconduct; he violated that retention warning with a civilian conviction and another NJP for continued misconduct.  Given the two nonjudicial punishments, coupled with a written retention warning and a civilian conviction, the required elements for separation based on Misconduct (Pattern of Misconduct) were satisfied.  After a detailed review of the facts, circumstances, and issues unique to this discharge action, the NDRB determined that the Applicant was discharged properly in accordance with the MILPERSMAN.  Relief denied.
    
Equity - The Applicant completed his first enlistment period with an Honorable characterization of service for that period of service; however, each period of enlistment is an independent obligation and characterization of service is determined for each specific period.  Based on the pattern of misconduct committed during the Applicant’s current enlistment, the command recommended separation with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) characterization of service at discharge.  The Separation Authority reviewed the evidence of record and the established pattern of misconduct and concurred.  

A service member’s characterization of service at discharge is recognition of performance and conduct during an enlistment; it is not necessarily dependent upon the narrative reason for separation or previous periods of honorable service.  When the quality of a member’s service has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for military personnel, it is appropriate to characterize that period of 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 of duties outweigh the positive aspects of the member’s military record.  The Applicant’s record of performance and conduct reflected a documented pattern of misconduct - willful violations of the UCMJ based on an inability to comply with rules and regulation.  After reviewing the Applicant’s official service record and supporting documentation, the NDRB determined that the Applicant’s conduct was honest and faithful, however, the Applicant’s documented misconduct was a significant negative aspect of the member’s conduct or performance and did outweigh the positive aspects of his service record.  As such, the NDRB determined that the Applicant’s misconduct did constitute a significant departure from the conduct expected of members of the Naval Service and that the characterization of service at discharge was appropriate, was equitable, and was consistent with the characterization of discharge given others in similar circumstances.  The NDRB determined that an upgrade would be inappropriate; accordingly, relief is denied. 

Summary:  After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service,  record entries, and the discharge process, the NDRB found that the discharge was proper, equitable, and not prejudicial to the Applicant.  Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall  GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS) and the narrative reason for separation shall remain PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT.  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