ex-SA, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20101004
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)	19970430 - 19970722  	Active:	

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment:  19970723	Age at Enlistment:  22
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Extension
Date of Discharge:  19990428	Highest Rank/Rate:  SA
Length of Service:   Year     Months   06 Days
Education Level:  	AFQT:  46
Evaluation Marks:	Performance:  NFIR	Behavior:  NFIR	OTA:  NFIR

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	NONE

Period of Unauthorized Absence (UA): 19981212 - 19990301 (80 days - terminated by military apprehension) 

Period of CONF:  19990315 - 19990414 (Pre-trial confinement)

NJP:  NONE	SCM:  NONE	SPCM:  NONE	CC:  NONE	Retention Warning Counseling:  NONE

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 18, effective 12 December 1997 until 10 July 2000, Article 1910-106, SEPARATION IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT-MARTIAL.

B.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part IV, Para 403m(7)(b), Presumption Concerning Court-Martial Specifications.

C.  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

Nondecisional Issues:  The Applicant seeks an upgrade in the characterization of his service at discharge in order to facilitate employment opportunities.

Decisional Issues:  The Applicant contends his characterization of service at discharge was inequitable; his father’s illness (cancer) led to poor judgment and decision-making and was a mitigating factor to his misconduct of record.  Furthermore, the Applicant contends his characterization of service at discharge was inequitable; his misconduct was an isolated incident in what was an otherwise outstanding military career.

Decision

Date:  20120112	           	Location:  Washington D.C.	Representation:  NONE

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

Discussion

The NDRB, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge, is authorized to change the character of service and the reason for discharge, if such change is warranted.  In reviewing discharges, the NDRB presumes regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the Applicant.  The Applicant identified two decisional issues related to the equity of his discharge 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 both equity and propriety.  

The Applicant’s enlistment record reflects entry into military service at age 22, with a waiver to enlistment and induction standards due to being a resident alien from Haiti.  The Applicant enlisted on a 4-year contract with a 12-month extension under a guarantee for training as a Corpsman.  The Applicant’s record of service included no NAVPERS 1070/613 (Page 13) retention-counseling warnings or non-judicial punishments.  However, the Applicant’s service record documents a period of unauthorized absence from 12 December 1998 to 01 March 1999 in violation of Article 86 (Absent without leave) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); this extended period of absence included being dropped from his unit rolls and being declared a deserter from the Armed Forces.  The Applicant’s unauthorized absence period was terminated by military apprehension at Ramstein Air Force Base, Germany where the Applicant states he was attempting to return to his duties after caring for his father in France.  The NDRB reviewed the Applicant’s separation proceedings; the Applicant was discharged in accordance with Article 106 of the Naval Military Personnel Manual (MILPERSMAN) and was afforded all his administrative rights that pertain.  In order to warrant separation in lieu of trial by court-martial, the Applicant requested separation - in writing - for the good of the service, to escape charges that had been preferred against the Applicant for referral to trial by a Special Court-Martial or above.  Eighty days of unauthorized absence is serious misconduct, which warrants a punitive discharge if adjudicated and awarded at trial by Special or General Court-Martial.  The request for separation contained certain basic requirements - which were required to be satisfied - before receiving approval by the Separation Authority.  In the request, the Applicant clearly affirmed that his rights had been explained to him - thoroughly - to include his right to consult with a qualified defense counsel, which he did.  Furthermore, the Applicant admitted his guilt to the charges as preferred against him and further certified that he had a complete understanding of the negative consequences of his actions, the narrative reason for his separation, and the likely characterization of his service upon separation - Under Other Than Honorable Conditions.

(Nondecisional Issues)  The Applicant seeks an upgrade in the characterization of his service at discharge in order to facilitate employment opportunities.  There is no requirement, or law, that grants re-characterization solely on the issue of facilitating employment opportunities, reenlistment, or access to Veterans Affairs benefits programs.  Regulations limit the NDRB’s review solely to a determination of the propriety and equity of a discharge action.  As such, this issue does not serve to provide a foundation upon which the NDRB can grant relief.

(Decisional Issue) ()  .  The Applicant contends his father’s illness (cancer) led to poor judgment and decision-making and was a mitigating factor to his misconduct of record.  Furthermore, the Applicant contends his misconduct was an isolated incident in what was an otherwise outstanding military career.  The NDRB reviewed all of the available records, supporting documents, facts, elements of discharge, the statement submitted by the Applicant, and the circumstances unique to this case.

(Propriety)  The Applicant requested administrative separation for the good of the service - in writing - in order to avoid trial by court-martial; he consulted with, and would have been represented throughout the process by, an appropriately credentialed legal defense counsel.  The command accepted the Applicant’s request and approved it after determining it met all the specifications required by the MILPERSMAN; as such, the Applicant was separated properly from the Naval Service in accordance with chapter 1910-106 and 1910-230 of the MILPERSMAN.  Accordingly, relief based on propriety is not warranted.

(Equity)  Despite a servicemember’s prior record of service, certain serious offenses, even though isolated, warrant separation from the Navy to maintain proper order and discipline.  The Applicant’s service record reflects that he willingly and knowingly departed his command, without authorization, for 80 days, in direct violation of Article 86 of the UCMJ; this action resulted in his missing training, his ship’s movements, and other sailors having to be reassigned to fill the gap he had created in the table of organization.  The Applicant’s command determined that his conduct was detrimental to the good order and discipline of the service and determined that the misconduct warranted punitive action via trial by court-martial.  Facing the punitive action of a court-martial, the Applicant requested administrative discharge, fully aware of the likely characterization of his service and narrative reason for his discharge that would be on his DD Form 214.

The Applicant contends his misconduct of record was the result of stress caused by his father’s diagnosis of terminal cancer.  The Applicant contends the characterization of his discharge warrants an upgrade, because he was pulled between his obligations to the Navy and the obligation of an only son to care for his ailing father.  The NDRB recognizes that serving in the military is challenging; most service members, however, serve honorably and therefore earn their Honorable or General discharges.  In fairness to those service members, commanders and separation authorities are tasked to ensure that undeserving Sailors receive no higher characterization than is due.  There is no evidence in the record, nor did the Applicant provide any documentation, to indicate he attempted to use the numerous services available for service members who undergo personal problems during their enlistment such as using annual leave or emergency leave, requesting permissive temporary additional duty due to hardship, consulting the Navy Chaplain, Medical or Mental Health professionals, or contacting the Red Cross.  Instead, the Applicant chose to absent himself from his unit, without authority, and remained absent for 80 days.

Characterization of service at discharge is based on recognition of a Sailor’s performance and conduct and is not necessarily dependent upon the narrative reason for separation.  When the quality of a member’s service has met the standards of accepted conduct and performance of duty for military personnel, it is appropriate to characterize that service under Honorable conditions.  An Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge, however, is warranted when a member engages in conduct involving one or more acts or omissions that constitute a significant departure from the conduct expected of members of the Naval Service.  The NDRB determined the Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, did reflect an act or omission that constituted a significant departure from the conduct expected of a service member and the awarded characterization of service upon discharge was both equitable and consistent with the characterization of discharge given others in similar circumstances.  The Applicant’s characterization of service at discharge was appropriate.  Accordingly, relief is denied.

Summary:  After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service,  record entries, and discharge process, the NDRB determined that    Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall   and the narrative reason for separation shall remain IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT MARTIAL.  The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing for a period of fifteen years from the date of her 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