ex-HN, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20110831
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)	20020914 - 20030202  	Active:	

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment:  20030203	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years  26 MONTHS Extension
Date of Discharge:  20080928	Highest Rank/Rate:  HM3
Length of Service:   Year(s)     Month(s)   26 Day(s)
Education Level:  12	AFQT:  50
Evaluation Marks:	Performance:  2.6 (3)	Behavior:  1.3 (3)	OTA:  2.38

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

Periods of UA/CONF:  

NJP:  

- 20030319:	Article  (Insubordinate conduct to a warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer - Disrespectful in language)
	Article 108 (Willfully damage military property)
	Article 117 (Wrongfully using provoking gestures, 2 specifications) 
	Awarded:    Suspended:  

- 20070312:	Article  (General Article, Bigamy) [Extracted from Evaluation Report& Counseling Record dated 20070314]
	Awarded:   	Suspended:   

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 214:

  “MILPERSMAN 1910-140”
  “PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT”

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 23, effective 20 May 2008 until 9 November 2009, 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.

C.  U.S. Code, Title 10, Section 1553 (d).

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

Applicant’s Issues

1.  The Applicant seeks an upgrade to facilitate access to greater benefits with the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).  
2.  The Applicant seeks an upgrade, contending that he was unfairly discharged for misconduct instead of being medically discharged for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).

Decision

Date:  20120510	        	Location:  Washington D.C.	Representation:  

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

Discussion

The NDRB reviewed the Applicant’s personal statement.  The Applicant contends that he has been diagnosed with PTSD by the VA as a result of his service in Iraq.  The Applicant’s military service record documents that he is a combat veteran, having served honorably during a combat deployment in the al-Anbar Province of Iraq (Sept 2004 - Feb 2005) in support of Operation IRAQI FREEDOM.  The military service record further documents that he was awarded the Combat Action Ribbon for his individual combat actions against enemy forces.  As such, in accordance with U.S. Code, Title 10, Section 1553 (d) (1), the board included a member who is a physician, clinical psychologist, or psychiatrist.  Additionally, in accordance with section 1553 (d) (2), the service secretary expedited a final decision and accorded the case sufficient priority to achieve an expedited resolution.

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 NDRB reviews the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge individually, on a case-by-case basis.  If such a review reveals an impropriety or inequity, relief is in order.  Regulations permit relief on equitable grounds if the Applicant’s discharge is inconsistent with the standards of discipline of the Naval Service.  The Applicant submitted one decisional issue 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 entered military service at age 18 with a waiver to enlistment and induction standards for pre-service illegal drug usage (marijuana) and a waiver for a minor in possession of alcohol.  The Applicant enlisted on a 4 year contract with a 24 month extension (which was extended for another 2 months) to receive training as a Corpsman.  The Applicant’s record of service documents two nonjudicial punishments for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 91 (Insubordinate conduct), Article 108 (Wrongful destruction of government property), Article 117 (Provoking speech or gestures), and Article 134 (General Article - Bigamy).  The record of service reflects that he was discharged administratively due to a Pattern of Misconduct resultant from his continued failure to pay just debts after having been counseled on his requirements to do so.  The government enjoys a presumption of regularity in the conduct of its affairs.  The Applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support his issue.  The NDRB was unable to locate a copy of the administrative discharge package to verify that the Applicant was properly notified of the separation proceeding and that he was accorded all of his rights; as such, the NDRB presumed regularity in this case.

Issue 1: (Nondecisional Issue)  The Applicant seeks an upgrade to facilitate access to greater benefits with the VA.  There is no requirement, or law, that grants re-characterization solely on the issue of facilitating access to VA benefits.  Additionally, the NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing educational opportunities or employment opportunities.  Regulations limit the NDRB’s review solely to a determination of the propriety and the equity of a discharge.  As such, this issue does not serve to provide a foundation upon which the NDRB can grant relief.  

Issue 2: (Decisional Issue) ()  .  The Applicant seeks an upgrade, contending that he was unfairly discharged for misconduct instead of being medically discharged for PTSD.  Department of Defense disability regulations do not preclude a disciplinary separation while being evaluated/processed for a medical discharge.  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 Board for Correction of Naval Records can grant this type of narrative reason change.  The record of service documents two NJPs for violations that warranted consideration for an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions characterization of service.  The NDRB determined that the processing for misconduct instead of a continued medical board was proper.

The government enjoys a presumption of regularity in the conduct of its affairs.  The Applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support his issue.  The NDRB requested the Applicant’s medical treatment records, but the VA was unable to locate them.  Furthermore, the NDRB did not find any reference to a medical diagnosis of PTSD in the Applicant’s service record to support his claim, and the Applicant did not provide any documentary evidence of a medical diagnosis by competent medical authorities to support this claim.  Though the Applicant may feel that PTSD was the underlying cause of his misconduct, the record reflects willful misconduct that demonstrated he was unfit for further service.  The evidence of record did not show that the Applicant was either not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions.  Insubordinate conduct, wrongful use of provoking gestures or language, destruction of military property, and bigamy were all conscious decisions to violate the tenets of honorable and faithful service.

Characterization of service at discharge is recognition of a Sailor’s performance and conduct throughout a period of enlistment 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.  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.  Given the facts of the record and the information provided by the Applicant, the NDRB determined that the Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, was honest and faithful, but that significant negative aspect of the member’s conduct did outweigh the overall positive aspects of his record.  As such, given the facts and circumstances unique to this case, the NDRB determined that relief was not warranted.  The NDRB voted 5-0 to not change either the characterization of service at discharge or the narrative reason for separation.  Relief 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 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 for additional information. 

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), 701 South Courthouse Road, Suite 1001, Arlington, VA 22204-2490 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