ex-, USMC 

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received:  20101112
Characterization of Service Received:  
Narrative Reason for Discharge:  
Authority for Discharge:  SECNAVINST 1920.6B

Applicant’s Request:	Characterization change to: 
	Narrative Reason change to: RETIRED

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive:	NONE		Active:	

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Appointment:  19830819	Age at Enlistment:  
Years Contracted:  Indefinite
Date of Discharge:  20050630	Highest Rank:  
Length of Service:
	Inactive:	  Year(s)    Month(s)  09  Day(s)
	Active:	  Year(s)    Month(s)  14  Day(s)
Education Level:  	AFQT:  70
MOS:  7565/9965
Officer’s Fitness reports:  Available

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	Rifle  (5) Pistol  AIR MEDAL-STRIKE/FLIGHT (2)  (2) MOVSM    (2)   (3)  (2)   (KUWAIT) MCRR  (SAUDI ARABIA)  (2)  (3)  (3) LoA (3) CoA 

Periods of UA/CONF:  

NJP:  	SCM:  	SPCM:  	CC:  	Retention Warning Counseling:  

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

The NDRB did note administrative error(s) on the original DD Form 215 (dated 20050711):

	Block 24, Character of Service, should read: “GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)”
	  “SECNAVINST 1920.6B”

The NDRB will recommend to the Commandant of the Marine Corps 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:	

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

Applicant’s Issues

1.	Applicant contends he received inadequate notice of the possibility for a discharge characterization less than Honorable.
2.	Applicant contends allegations against him could not result in criminal charges under the military justice system, therefore requiring an Honorable characterization of service upon retirement.
3.	Applicant contends applicable laws do not permit any discharge besides Honorable.
4.	Applicant contends his discharge characterization was unjust and erroneous.
5.	Applicant contends the outcome of civil charges filed against him warrant a discharge upgrade to Honorable.
6.	Applicant contends his discharge characterization was inequitable based on his record of service.

Decision

Date:  20120426		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 six decisional issues for the Board’s consideration.  The NDRB completed a thorough review of the circumstances that led to his discharge and the discharge process to ensure his discharge met the pertinent standards of equity and propriety.  The Applicant’s record of service did not include any 6105 counseling retention warnings, commanding officer nonjudicial punishments (NJPs), or trial by courts-martial.  The record did reflect that the Applicant was charged by civil authorities in Riverside, California for offenses relating to his sexual relations with a minor.  Based on the offenses committed by the Applicant, as evidenced by a Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) investigation report that included a recorded admission of guilt from the Applicant and the pending civil trial for felony offenses, the Commanding General, Marine Forces Reserve (Commander, MARFORRES) directed that the Applicant show cause for retention via a Board of Inquiry (BOI), via memo dated 2 Feb 2005, on the basis of misconduct, moral or professional dereliction.  On 8 Apr 2005, the Applicant, after consultation with qualified counsel, submitted a request to the Secretary of the Navy for a waiver of the BOI requirement and to be allowed to voluntarily retire at his present grade of Lieutenant Colonel.  On 15 Apr 2005, the Commander, MARFORRES endorsed the Applicant’s request, recommending approval of his request for voluntary retirement but disapproval of his request to be allowed retirement at the rank of LtCol.  His endorsement included the following remarks: “Forwarded, recommending approval of the respondent’s request to voluntarily retire from the Marine Corps Reserve, but recommending disapproval of his request to retire at his present grade.  The evidence…reveals that the respondent’s misconduct occurred in 1999 while he was a Major.  The respondent was promoted to Lieutenant Colonel in September 2001.  Accordingly, I recommend that the respondent be retired as a Captain/O-3, the highest grade in which he served satisfactorily.”  On 25 May 2005, the Deputy Commandant of the Marine Corps, Manpower and Reserve Affairs (DC, M&RA), endorsed the Applicant’s request recommending that the Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Manpower and Reserve Affairs (ASN, M&RA) approve the Applicant’s request to retire, but in the grade of Captain.  On 3 Jun 2005, the ASN, M&RA approved the Applicant’s request to voluntarily retire, but at the grade of Capt/O-3.

For reasons unclear to the NDRB, the Applicant received a (locally generated) DD Form 214, effective 30 Apr 2005, which listed an Honorable discharge from the Marine Corps (Retired) due to “Non-selection permanent promotion.”  Based on the circumstances surrounding the Applicant’s reported misconduct and the established Separation Authority for commissioned officer separations (including retirement), the 30 Apr 2005 issued DD Form 214 was considered by the NDRB to be completely erroneous and immaterial to this case.  On 11 Jul 2005, the Applicant was issued a DD Form 215 correcting his previously issued DD Form 214 (dated 30 Apr 2005) as follows:  General (Under Honorable Conditions), Misconduct (Board Waived), RNC1, effective date of discharge 30 Jun 2005.  The NDRB will recommend to Headquarters Marine Corps that the Applicant be reissued a DD Form 214, as a DD Form 215 was the incorrect form to have been issued since a DD Form 214 is required when the service member’s characterization of service and/or narrative reason for separation is changed.

:  (Decisional) ()  .  The Applicant contends he received inadequate notice of the possibility for a discharge characterization less than Honorable.  Evidence within the Applicant’s service records indicate that the Applicant was interviewed by NCIS on 6 April 2004, which included a tape recorded conversation in which the Applicant admitted to being sexually involved with the victim.  On 16 August 2004, NCIS completed its investigation report regarding the Applicant’s alleged misconduct committed during 1999.  Two months later, a civil court arraignment was held in Riverside County, CA on 13 October 2004.  After review of the NCIS investigation and the evidence and findings therein, the Show Cause Authority (Commander, MARFORRES) directed that the Applicant show cause for retention via a BOI hearing.  In his letter, the Commander, MARFORRES stated, “Pursuant to SECNAVINST 1920.6B, Marine Corps Order (MCO) P5800.16A, and MARADMIN 135/01, I have been designated as the Show Cause Authority for Marine Forces Reserve.  In that capacity, I have reviewed the evidence in the NCIS investigation (dated 16 August 2004), and have determined that there is sufficient cause to refer this case to a Board of Inquiry (BOI).  You are hereby notified that I will convene a BOI to make findings and recommendations as to whether you should be involuntarily retired from the Marine Corps Reserve.  My intention is to hold the BOI sometime during the month of March 2005….  The specific reasons for separation that the BOI will consider are Substandard Performance of Duty and Misconduct, or Moral or Professional Dereliction….  In your case, the most adverse characterization the Board may recommend is under Honorable conditions….”  Therefore, the Applicant was notified that he could receive a discharge characterization of service “under Honorable conditions,” which includes HONORABLE or GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS).  The NDRB did note that throughout the endorsement process (via the chain of command) of the Applicant’s request for waiver of BOI and retirement that no mention was made as to the appropriate or recommended characterization of service to be awarded the Applicant.  However, whether characterization of service was addressed by the chain of command or not, the decision on whether to retain or separate an officer and subsequently, the appropriate characterization of service to award the separating officer (separation includes discharge, dismissal, dropping from the rolls, termination of an appointment, retirement or resignation) resides solely with the Secretary of the Navy.  When reviewing the Applicant’s records, the NDRB noted that the Applicant did in fact submit matters for consideration to the Separation Authority/chain of command when attempting to justify his request for retirement at his then present grade of Lieutenant Colonel.  The Applicant, in his letter to the NDRB, asserts that had he known that a discharge characterization of something less than Honorable was possible, he would have submitted matters on his behalf.  The NDRB could find no reasonable justification that matters submitted on his behalf to justify an Honorable characterization of service would have been materially different than that which was previously submitted to justify retirement in his present grade.  Lastly, based on the evidence contained within the NCIS Investigation Report and the detailed endorsements by the Commander, MARFORRES and the Deputy Commandant for Manpower and Reserve Affairs, the NDRB unanimously agreed that the Applicant was never considered for endorsement of an Honorable discharge characterization from any level within the chain of command.

After extensive review of all the available documentation, and consideration of the facts and circumstances surrounding the reasons for which the Applicant was directed to show cause for retention in the first place, the NDRB determined that the Applicant’s misconduct was in no way indicative of the type of service that is typically afforded an Honorable discharge upon separation from service.  Per the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual (MARCORSEPMAN), when a  service has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service as Honorable.  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 outweigh the positive aspects of the member’s service record.  The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of service, reflects the Applicant’s willful failure to meet the requirements of conduct expected of all Marines, especially considering his rank at the time of his misconduct (field grade officer), his experience, and total length of service, and falls short of what is required for an upgrade in the characterization of service to Honorable.  Accordingly, the NDRB found the Applicant’s issue to be without merit and did not provide a basis for which relief could be granted.  Relief denied.

:  (Decisional) ()  .  The Applicant contends allegations against him could not result in criminal charges under the military justice system, therefore requiring an Honorable characterization of service upon retirement.  The basis for the Applicant being directed to show cause for retention was evidence contained within an NCIS Investigation Report (dated 16 August 2004) that included a recorded conversation with the Applicant in which he admitted to being sexually involved with a minor.  For reasons unknown to the NDRB, the Applicant’s command did not charge him with Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) offenses for adjudication at Commanding Officer or Commanding General NJP or trial by court-martial.  However, the command was aware that charges were filed in civil court (13 October 2004 arraignment in Riverside County, CA) and may have elected to forego military prosecution in lieu of civil prosecution.  Further, the pending civil prosecution did not mean the Applicant could not have been punished under the UCMJ via court-martial (with SECNAV approval) or via administrative punishment.  Based on the evidence available to the NDRB, the Applicant could have had charges preferred to a court-martial for commission of a serious offense under the UCMJ for violation of Article 133 (Conduct unbecoming an officer) and Article 120 (Wrongful sexual contact).

Instead of administrative or punitive adjudication, however, and based on a preponderance of the evidence that the Applicant did commit misconduct, the Applicant was directed to show cause for retention via a BOI.  The Applicant, after consultation with qualified counsel, requested to waive the BOI proceedings.  From the evidence available to the NDRB, it is clear that the Applicant’s recorded admission to NCIS, combined with other evidence located within the NCIS investigation report, provided the necessary substantiation to warrant initiation of separation proceedings via direction to the Applicant to show cause for retention before a BOI.  Further, in his request to the chain of command for waiver of BOI proceedings and to be allowed voluntary retirement (to include retirement in present grade), the Applicant admitted that his conduct “…was substandard and unbecoming an officer and gentlemen…,” and therefore, in violation of UCMJ Article 133.  Violation of Article 133 is considered a serious offense per the Manual for Courts-Martial and is punishable by up to 12 months confinement and dismissal if adjudicated at trial by General Court-Martial.  After careful consideration and thorough deliberation on the evidence of record, and the facts and circumstances surrounding the Applicant’s misconduct, the NDRB determined this issue to be without merit and did not provide a basis for which relief could be granted.  Relief denied.

:  (Decisional) ()  .  The Applicant contends applicable laws do not permit any discharge besides Honorable.  The Applicant quoted notification and proceedings instructions from SECNAVINST 1920.6B, which provides guidance and direction on the notification of Navy and Marine Corps officers for separation proceedings for cause, BOI hearings, and voluntary and involuntary retirements.  The NDRB noted that although the guidance provided within the SECNAV Instruction (and MARCORSEPMAN) for the conduct of BOI hearings and the resultant findings and recommendations made no mention of a recommendation for characterization of service for retirement eligible officers, a characterization determination other than an Honorable discharge was not specifically prohibited.  Moreover, the Secretarial Authority vested within the Secretary of the Navy (or designated delegated authorities) by the President of the United States allows the service secretary to dismiss or separate (to include retirement) officers as required and is allowed by law.

Per SECNAVINST 1920.6B, “officers who are being considered for removal from active duty and who are eligible for voluntary retirement under any provision of the law on the date of such removal, may, upon approval by SECNAV, be retired in the highest grade in which they served satisfactorily as determined by SECNAV….”  Further, Enclosure (5), Guidelines for Characterization of Service, states, “Characterization of service incident to separation for cause will be based on the officer’s record of performance and conduct including particularly the acts or omissions giving rise to separation for cause….  The serious nature of misconduct, moral, or professional dereliction on the part of commissioned officers require the separation normally be under Other Than Honorable Conditions.  However, characterization as General (Under Honorable Conditions) may be warranted under the guidelines below.  Characterization as Honorable is not authorized unless the officer’s record is otherwise so meritorious that under the particular circumstances any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.”

After comprehensive review and careful consideration, the NDRB determined that the Applicant’s characterization of service as General (Under Honorable Conditions), upon his approved voluntary retirement in lieu of show cause for retention proceedings (due to misconduct), was proper and equitable.  The NDRB could find no evidence to support the Applicant’s contention that established law precludes or prohibits retirement eligible officers from receiving a character of service determination upon retirement other than Honorable.  Moreover, to do so would effectively allow retirement-eligible officers to commit serious misconduct and, without punitive discharge via trial by court-martial or a termination from the rolls of the Naval Service, receive an Honorable discharge upon retirement.  Accordingly, the NDRB found the Applicant’s issue did not provide a basis for which relief could be granted.  Relief denied.

Issue 4:  (Decisional) ()  .  The Applicant contends his discharge characterization was unjust and erroneous.  Per the MARCORSEPMAN, every commanding officer shall report to the CMC (JAM) all incidents (including information received through any source, e.g., Naval Investigative Service, Civilian Law Enforcement, etc.) involving any officer whose performance or conduct is such that processing for separation may be appropriate, consistent with this chapter.  “The CMC shall initiate processing for separation under the following circumstances:  Cases referred under paragraph 4101 when considered appropriate under this chapter or; when information is received involving officers whose performance or conduct is such that processing for separation is considered appropriate under this chapter.”  The MARCORSEPMAN “provides supplemental guidance, in concert with SECNAVINST 1920.6B, on the established policies, standards, and procedures for the administrative separation of officers of the Marine Corps who do not maintain required standards of performance, professional, or personal conduct.  Notwithstanding any provision in the MARCORSEPMAN, the policies, standards, and procedures contained in SECNAVINST 1920.6 control administrative separation of officers.  An officer being processed for separation for cause may, at any time during proceedings, under this chapter, submit a qualified or unqualified resignation or a resignation for the good of the service, or, if eligible, request retirement under chapter 2 of this manual.  The Secretary of the Navy is the approval authority for officer retirement requests.  For routine retirements, this authority has been delegated to the Deputy Commandant, Manpower and Reserve Affairs.”

Per the MARCORSEPMAN, characterization is recognition of the quality of a Marine’s performance and conduct.  An Honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the Marine’s service has met the standards of accepted conduct and performance of duty for military personnel.  A General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge is the second highest quality of characterization and 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.  In reviewing the Applicant’s case, the NDRB determined the Applicant’s misconduct was substantiated, via a preponderance of the evidence, and resulted in being directed to show cause for retention via a BOI hearing.  The notification to show cause and the decision to separate the Applicant from the Marine Corps via retirement was based on the preponderance of the evidence that the Applicant did, in fact, commit the misconduct for which he was directed to show cause for retention.  Accordingly, and in keeping with the spirit and intent of the applicable orders and directives in effect at the time of the Applicant’s separation via retirement, the NDRB determined that the General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge awarded the Applicant at the time of his approved retirement was proper and equitable.  The NDRB determined an upgrade to Honorable would be inappropriate.  Relief denied.

Issue 5:  (Decisional) ()  .  The Applicant contends the outcome of civil charges filed against him warrant a discharge upgrade to Honorable.  With relation to the misconduct for which the Applicant was directed to show cause for retention, a dismissal of charges in civil court does not equate to a finding of “not guilty” and therefore absolve him of wrongdoing.  Moreover, the Applicant was directed to show cause for retention based on a preponderance of the evidence that resulted from documentary evidence provided in an NCIS Investigation Report that referenced a taped conversation in which the Applicant admitted to being sexually involved with the victim.  In addition to the NCIS Investigation Report evidence, the Applicant waived his right to defend himself against the allegations at a BOI hearing.  Endorsing statements from the Applicant’s chain of command clearly reflect the seriousness of the Applicant’s misconduct and its effect on the good order and discipline of the Marine Corps to include violation of the special trust and confidence placed in commissioned officers of Marines.  After analysis and thorough deliberation on the facts and circumstances unique to this case, and without significant and credible evidence to rebut the preponderance of the evidence utilized at the time of the Applicant’s show cause for retention and eventual retirement separation from service, the NDRB determined that his discharge was proper and equitable at the time of discharge and that this issue did not provide a basis for which relief could be granted.  Relief denied.

Issue 6:  (Decisional) ()  .  The Applicant contends his discharge characterization was inequitable based on his record of service.  There is no question that his record of service was honorable prior to the misconduct in 1999.  However, the special trust and confidence placed in Marine Officers requires a standard of personal and professional conduct and deportment that must remain above reproach.  Clearly, the Applicant’s personal conduct during 1999, while serving as a field grade officer, violated this special trust and confidence.  Per the MARCORSEPSMAN, when a  service has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service as Honorable.  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 outweigh the positive aspects of the member’s service record.  The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of service, reflects the Applicant’s willful failure to meet the requirements of conduct expected of all Marines, especially considering his rank at the time of his misconduct (field grade officer), his experience, and total length of service, and falls short of what is required for an upgrade in the characterization of service to Honorable.  Accordingly, the NDRB found the Applicant’s issue to be without merit and 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 show cause for retention and subsequent voluntary retirement request processes, the Board found   Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall  GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS) 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 for additional information.

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 1920.6B (ADMINISTRATIVE SEPARATION OF OFFICERS), 13 December 1999 until 15 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 Mar 97.

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. 

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