ex-ADAR, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20100916
Characterization of Service Received:  
Narrative Reason for Discharge:  
Authority for Discharge:  MILPERSMAN 3630300

Applicant’s Request:	Characterization change to:	
	Narrative Reason change to:	REQUESTED, EARLY RELEASE, GOOD OF THE SERVICE, ETC.

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive:	USNR (DEP)	19960710 - 19961208  	Active:	

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment:  19961209	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Extension
Date of Discharge:  19971126	Highest Rank/Rate:  ADAA
Length of Service:   Year(s)     Month(s)   18 Day(s)
Education Level:  	AFQT:  NFIR
Evaluation Marks:	Performance:  NFIR	Behavior:  NFIR	OTA:  NFIR

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	NONE

Periods of CONF:  

NJP:  

- 19970718:	Article  (UA), 3 specifications
	Specification 1: 0730, 19970704 - 0730, 19970707, 3 days
	Specification 2: Failure to go to place of duty at 0800, 19970704
	Specification 3: 0515 - 0830, 19970710
	Awarded:   Suspended:  

- 19971015:	Article  (UA 0630, 19971013 - 0700, 19971015, 2 days) 
	Awarded:     Suspended:  

- 19971111:	Article  (UA appointed place of duty - restriction muster, 20071102), 3 specifications 
	Article  (False official statements, 20071107)
	Awarded:   Suspended:  

SCM:  

SPCM:  

CC:  

Retention Warning Counseling:  

- 19970718:	For three specifications of unauthorized absence.

NDRB Documentary Review Conducted (date):	19990913
NDRB Documentary Review Docket Number:	ND98-01301
NDRB Documentary Review Findings:		Proper as issued and that no change is warranted.

NDRB Documentary Review Conducted (date):	20081009
NDRB Documentary Review Docket Number:	ND08-01324
NDRB Documentary Review Findings:		Proper as issued and that no change is warranted.

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

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

	  “GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)”

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 14, effective 3 October 1996 until 11 December 1997, 
Article 3630600, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT - A 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 discharge upgrade, RE code, and narrative reason changes to improve employment opportunities.
2.	Applicant contends his discharge for minor misconduct was inequitable.
3.	Applicant contends his post-service achievements warrant consideration for a discharge upgrade to Honorable.
4.	Applicant contends latent psycho-social issues relating to incomplete brain development and maturity contributed to the misconduct for which he was separated.
Decision

Date:  20111027		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 completed 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 warning and   for  of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 86 (Absence without leave, 7 specifications) and Article 107 (False official statement).  Based on the offenses committed by the Applicant,  command administratively processed  for separation.  When notified of administrative separation processing using the  procedure on 13 Nov 1997, the Applicant waived  rights to submit a written statement and request a General Court-Martial Convening Authority review.  The Board could not determine whether he elected his right to consult with a qualified counsel.  The Applicant was separated from the Navy on 26 Nov 1997 with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) due to Pattern of Misconduct. 
:  (Nondecisional) The Applicant seeks discharge upgrade, RE code, and narrative reason changes to improve employment opportunities.  The NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the 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 discharge for minor misconduct was inequitable.  A review of the Applicant’s record reveals a pattern of inconsistent performance and conduct as evidenced by a Page 13 retention warning and three NJPs, which included 7 specifications of Unauthorized Absence, in 11 months of service in the Navy.  Per the Naval Military Personnel Manual (MILPERSMAN), a Sailor may be awarded a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge if a member’s service has been honest and faithful, but significant negative aspects of the member’s conduct or performance outweigh positive aspects of the member’s military record.  The Applicant contends that personal stressors and lack of command leadership mitigate the misconduct for which he was separated.  The NDRB could find no evidence in the record to indicate the Applicant made any attempts to use the numerous services available to service members who undergo personal problems during their enlistment, such as the Navy Chaplain, Medical or Mental Health professionals, Navy Relief Society, Family Advocacy Programs, or even the Red Cross.  The NDRB recognizes that serving in the U.S. Navy is challenging.  However, all members of the Naval Services are expected to uphold the high standards of conduct as evidenced in our Core Values of Honor, Courage, and Commitment, regardless of the environment or mission in which assigned.  After careful consideration of all the available evidence, to include the documentation submitted by the Applicant and his personal appearance hearing testimony, the Board determined that the Applicant’s administrative separation was proper and equitable, and in accordance with the applicable orders and directive in effect at the time of his separation.  Accordingly, the Board found this issue to be without merit and did not provide a basis for which relief could be granted.  Relief denied.
:  (Decisional) ()  .  The Applicant contends his post-service achievements warrant consideration for a discharge upgrade to Honorable.  The NDRB considers post-service conduct in order to determine if the misconduct committed during active duty was indicative of the Applicant’s character or an aberration.  However, there is no law or regulation that provides an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving the service.  Normally, to permit relief, a procedural impropriety or inequity must have been found to have existed during the period of enlistment in question.  The Applicant provided documentation that included letters of personal reference, a verifiable employment record/letters of recommendation from his employers, certification of non-involvement with civil authorities, evidence of financial stability, and college/vocational school certifications.  Post-service achievements alone do not guarantee a discharge upgrade as each discharge is reviewed by the Board on a case by case basis due to its own specific circumstances.  Per the MILPERSMAN, 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.  After careful examination and thorough deliberation, the Board determined the awarded characterization of service and narrative reason for discharge shall remain General (Under Honorable Conditions) due to Pattern of Misconduct.  Relief denied.

Issue 4: (Decisional) (Equity)  RELIEF NOT WARRANTED.  The Applicant contends latent psycho-social issues relating to incomplete brain development and delayed maturity contributed to the misconduct for which he was separated.  The Applicant provided documentary evidence of recent scientific research in support of his issue.  In the course of conducting the personal appearance hearing proceedings, the Board examined all of the evidence, to include the documentary evidence and testimony presented by the Applicant.  After careful review, the Board determined that although the Applicant’s brain and maturity levels may have still been progressing toward complete development (as is the case for most 18-24 year old males), he was fully aware of and responsible for his actions.  While he may feel this was an underlying cause of his misconduct, the record clearly reflects his misconduct to be willful and demonstrated he was unfit for further service.  The evidence of record does not demonstrate the Applicant was not responsible for his conduct or should not be held accountable for his actions.  Accordingly, the Board found that this issue did not provide a basis for which relief could be granted.  Relief denied.

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

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