ex-CSSN, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20111004
Characterization of Service Received:  
Narrative Reason for Discharge:   
Authority for Discharge:  MILPERSMAN 

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

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive:	USNR (DEP)	20040323 - 20041101  	Active:	 20041102 - 20090524 HON

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment:  20090525	Age at Re-enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Extension
Date of Discharge:  20091020	Highest Rank/Rate:  CS3
Length of Service:   Year(s)     Month(s)   25 Day(s)
Education Level:  	AFQT:  40
Evaluation Marks:	Performance:  4.0 (1)	Behavior:  4.0 (1)	OTA:  3.83

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

Periods of UA/CONF:  

NJP:  

- 20090710:	Article  (Failure to obey order or regulation) 
	Awarded:   Suspended:   

- 20090929:	Article  (Wrongful use, possession, etc., of a controlled substance - wrongful use of marijuana per Naval Drug Lab urinalysis test) 
	Awarded:     Suspended:  

SCM:  				SPCM:  			CC:  

Retention Warning Counseling:  

- 20090710:	No specifics found in record - NAVPERS 1070/613 retention counseling warning issued per Commanding Officer’s Letter dated 20091005 

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

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

	 Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, should read:  “NATIONAL DEFENSE SERVICE MEDAL, SEA SERVICE DEPLOYMENT RIBBON, GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM EXPEDITIONARY MEDAL”

	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.  The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 23, effective 2 June 2008 until 9 November 2009, Article 1910-146, SEPARATION BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT - DRUG ABUSE.

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) (1) and (d) (2).

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

Applicant’s Issues

Decisional issues: The Applicant contends that his misconduct of record was the result of stress from depression and anxiety and led to self-medicating in an attempt to treat the undiagnosed symptoms related to Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD); as such, he contends that these issues warrant consideration as extenuating and mitigating factors to his discharge.  The Applicant further contends that he warrants a change to his narrative reason for discharge to reflect “Medical” vice Misconduct (Drug Abuse).
 
Decision

Date:  20120308	      	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 statement; the Applicant stated that he was suffering from PTSD related to his combat service in the North Arabian Gulf and Kuwait.  The Applicant’s record documents that he was deployed in a combat zone in the North Arabian Gulf and Kuwait.  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.  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 and propriety 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 his initial entry into military service at age 19, without waivers to enlistment standards.  The Applicant enlisted on an initial contract for 4 years and executed 24 months worth of extensions before reenlisting in May 2009.  The Applicant was serving on his second enlistment contract of 3 years with no extensions when he was discharged, completing four months and 25 days of the reenlistment agreement.  The Applicant’s record of service during his current enlistment period reflects one NAVPERS 1070/613 retention-counseling warning being issued.  Furthermore, the Applicant’s service record during his current enlistment period also documents two nonjudicial punishments for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), specifically: Article 92 (Failure to obey lawful orders or regulations) and Article 112(a) (Wrongful use, possession, etc., of a controlled substance).  Based on the Article 112(a) violation, by service policy, processing for administrative separation was mandatory.  The NDRB reviewed the Applicant’s discharge package to ensure the Applicant was afforded all rights, as required by the Naval Military Personnel Manual (MILPERSMAN).  When notified of the administrative separation process using the administrative board procedure, the Applicant elected to waive his right to consult with a qualified legal counsel, to present his case for retention to an administrative hearing board, or to provide written matters to the Separation Authority for his consideration.  The Applicant was advised - in writing - that the least favorable characterization of service he could receive was Under Other Than Honorable Conditions and that characterization was what the Commander was recommending.  The Separation Authority reviewed the chain of command’s recommendations and concurred; on 20 October 2009, the Applicant was discharged with a corresponding re-entry code of RE-4 (not recommended for reenlistment).   

(Decisional issues) ()  .  The Applicant contends that his misconduct of record was the result of stress from depression and anxiety and led to self-medicating in an attempted to treat the undiagnosed symptoms related to PTSD; as such, he contends that these issues warrant consideration as extenuating and mitigating factors to his discharge.  The Applicant further contends that he warrants a change to his narrative reason for discharge to reflect “Medical” vice Misconduct (Drug Abuse). 

(Propriety)  The Applicant was found guilty at two nonjudicial punishments of violating Article 92 (10 Jul 09 - failure to obey orders or regulation) and Article 112(a) (29 Sept 09 - wrongful use, possession, etc of a controlled substance).  The basis for establishing that the Applicant had committed the drug offense was a command urinalysis test conducted upon the Applicant’s check-in to his new command; the test results were confirmed by Naval Drug Lab tests as being positive for marijuana use.  By service policy, confirmed illegal drug use mandates processing for administrative separation.  The Applicant’s service record reflects that he was advised properly of the separation recommendation by his chain of command; he was afforded the opportunity to exercise his rights and acknowledged all such in writing, to include waiving his right to present his case for retention to an administrative board of members.  The Separation Authority reviewed the evidence of record and the chain of command’s recommendations and concurred with the determination that a preponderance of the evidence satisfied the requirements as outlined in both Article 1910-146 (Misconduct - Drug Abuse) and Article 1910-140 - Misconduct (Pattern of Misconduct) of the MILPERSMAN; accordingly, he directed the Applicant be discharged.  The Separation Authority directed that Misconduct (Drug Abuse) was the primary reason for separation and that the Applicant be assigned a corresponding reentry code of RE-4 (not recommended for reenlistment).

The Applicant contends that he warrants a change to his narrative reason for discharge to reflect “Medical” vice Misconduct (Drug Abuse).  The NDRB requested the Applicant’s medical records in order to review his contention of PTSD, however, the VA was unable to locate the records for review.  The Applicant’s service record does not reflect any indications of, or consideration for, a diagnosis of PTSD while in service.  The service record does reflect that the Applicant was on limited duty and, because of that, was transferred from his assigned ship to a temporary duty assignment ashore with the local Transient Personnel Unit.  The service record further documents that during the administrative separation process, the Applicant was screened and evaluated for PTSD and Traumatic Brain Injury as possible contributing factors in accordance with Article 1910-702 of the MILPERSMAN.  In accordance with DOD disability regulations, Medical discharge processing does not preclude a disciplinary separation.  SECNAVINST 1850.4 E stipulates that separations for misconduct take precedence over potential separations for other reasons.  Whenever a member is being processed through the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB), and is subsequently processed for an administrative, involuntary separation pursuant to misconduct, the disability evaluation is suspended.  The PEB case remains in suspense, pending the outcome of the non-disability (misconduct) proceedings.  If the action includes either a punitive or administrative discharge for misconduct, the medical board report is closed and filed in the member’s terminated health record.  Accordingly, the NDRB determined that the evidence of record did establish the basis for discharge and that the Separation Authority actions were proper.  As such, relief based on propriety is not warranted.

(Equity)  The Applicant contends that his misconduct of record was the result of stress from depression and anxiety and led to self-medicating in an attempted to treat the undiagnosed symptoms related to PTSD.  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, but did not receive the Applicant’s in-service medical record or post-service records of any Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) treatments to evaluate any findings of PTSD.  The official service record documents that PTSD and TBI were considered, at the time of separation, but were found to not be contributory factors at that time.  The Applicant provided the NDRB a copy of a Department of Veterans Affairs Clinical Psychologist evaluation diagnosing PTSD with secondary problems of substance abuse, however, the diagnosis does not provide a determination of any level of disability resultant from these conditions.  The Applicant contends that during his service, he was suffering mental distress and that he was admitted to psychiatric wards on three separate occasions, each admission being for a period of 1 to 2 weeks in duration.  As such, the Applicant was presented with multiple opportunities to seek help through appropriate medical treatment programs for his distress and any other mental health concerns he had instead of resorting to illegal drugs and alcohol to “self-medicate.”  After a careful review of the Applicant’s Naval deployment history in the North Arabian Gulf (a designated combat zone), coupled with his personal statement to the board, the NDRB determined the Applicant’s contention of post-deployment stress and mental health problems were not mitigating or contributory factors to his misconduct.  The record clearly reflected willful misconduct and demonstrated that he was unfit for further service.

Despite a service member’s prior record of service, certain serious offenses warrant separation from the Naval Service in order to maintain good order and discipline.  Violation of Article 112(a) is one such offense, requiring mandatory processing for administrative separation, regardless of grade, performance, service record, combat service, or time in service.  Moreover, this action usually results in an unfavorable characterization of service at discharge or, at a maximum, a punitive discharge with the possibility of confinement, if adjudicated and awarded as part of a sentence by a special or general court-martial.  The Applicant’s command did not opt to pursue a punitive discharge but instead chose the more lenient, non-punitive administrative discharge process following two nonjudicial punishments for failure to obey orders or regulations and illegal drug use.  Based on the seriousness of the offenses during the Applicant’s enlistment, the chain of command recommended separation with an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions characterization of service at discharge.

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.  An Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge 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 Applicant’s record clearly documents his acceptable conduct while deployed in a combat zone; for this service, he received the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal.  However, the record of service does not document any personal awards received during combat or peacetime service that would constitute service that was so meritorious that it would reverse his acts of failure to obey and illegal drug use - which did constitute a significant departure from the conduct expected of service members.  After a thorough review of the Applicant’s record of service, the NDRB determined that the Applicant had engaged in conduct involving one or more acts or omissions that constituted a significant departure from the conduct expected of members of the Naval Service.  In reviewing the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the NDRB determined that the narrative reason for separation and the resulting characterization of service at discharge was proper, was equitable, was warranted, and was and is consistent with the characterization of discharges given to others in similar circumstances.  An upgrade or change would be inappropriate.  Accordingly, relief as requested is denied.

Summary:  After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, service record entries, and the discharge process, the NDRB determined that   Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall   and the narrative reason for separation shall remain  (DRUG ABUSE).  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), 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