ex-AWF2, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20120710
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)	19920102 - 19920113  	Active:		19920114 - 19960111  HON
				USNR	19960112 - 20031230  HON
				USNR	20031231 - 20080413  HON
Pre-Service Drug Waiver:  

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment:  20080414	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Extension
Date of Discharge:  20110825	Highest Rank/Rate:  AWF1
Length of Service:  19 Years     Months   10 Days
Education Level:  	AFQT:  61
Evaluation Marks:	Performance:  3.2 (5)	Behavior:  2.4 (5)	OTA:  2.80

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	  (3)  (3) NRMSM (5)    (2)  NRSSR (4) AFRM NAWS 

Periods of UA/CONF:  

NJP:  
- 20110119:	Article  (Drunken or reckless operation of a vehicle, aircraft, or vessel)
	Article  (Wrongful use, possession, etc. of controlled substances, to wit: Cocaine 5302 ng/mL)
	Awarded:     Suspended:  

SCM:     	SPCM:     	CC:     	Retention Warning Counseling:  

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

The NDRB did note administrative errors on the original DD Form 214:

	 Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, should read:  “NAVY AND MARINE CORPS COMMENDATION MEDAL, NAVY AND MARINE CORPS ACHIEVEMENT MEDAL (3), NAVY “E” RIBBON (3), NAVAL RESERVE MERITORIOUS SERVICE MEDAL (5), NATIONAL DEFENSE SERVICE MEDAL, ARMED FORCES EXPEDITIONARY MEDAL, ARMED FORCES SERVICE MEDAL (2), HUMANITARIAN SERVICE MEDAL, NAVAL RESERVE SEA SERVICE RIBBON (4), ARMED FORCES RESERVE MEDAL, NAVAL AIRCREW WARFARE SPECIALIST, ENLISTED AVIATION WARFARE SPECIALIST, GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM SERVICE MEDAL, NAVY GOOD CONDUCT MEDAL (3), FLAG LETTER OF COMMENDATION, LETTER OF COMMENDATION (4), LETTER OF APPRECIATION (2)”
	  “CONTINUOUS HONORABLE ACTIVE SERVICE FROM 920114 UNTIL 20080413” 

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 29, effective 10 November 2009 until Present, 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.

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

Applicant’s Issues

1.	The Applicant contends his discharge is not representative of his 19 years and 7 months of Naval service with zeal, obedience, and fidelity.
2.	The Applicant contends his one incident of misconduct was a result of extreme duress brought on by hazing at his command and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) from his most recent deployment.

Decision

Date:  20130509		Location:  Washington D.C.	Representation:  

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

Discussion

As a result of the Applicant’s claim of PTSD, in accordance with U.S. Code, Title X, Section 1553(d)(1), the Naval Discharge Review Board reviewed the Applicant’s record to see if he deployed in support of a contingency operation and was, as a consequence of that deployment, diagnosed with either PTSD or Traumatic Brain Injury.  Although the Applicant contends he suffers from PTSD related to his most current deployment, a review of his record did not reveal any deployments in support of a contingency operation.  Therefore, his case did not warrant an expedited review in accordance with U.S. Code, Title X, Section 1553(d)(1).  However, the NDRB did include a member who is a psychiatrist since the Applicant contends he suffers from PTSD.

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 Board did complete 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   for  of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article  (Drunken or reckless operation of a vehicle, aircraft, or vessel, ) and Article  (Wrongful use, possession, etc. of controlled substances, to wit: Cocaine 5302 ng/mL, ).  The Applicant  a pre-service drug waiver for using illicit drugs prior to entering the Navy.  Based on the Article 112a violation, processing for administrative separation is mandatory.  When notified of administrative separation processing using the  procedure, the Applicant   rights to consult with a qualified counsel and request an administrative board, but waived his right to submit a written statement.  The Applicant appeared before an Administrative Separation Board (ASB) on 3 March 2011.  The ASB determined by a unanimous vote, 3-0, that the preponderance of the evidence supported the notification for separation, and the ASB recommended that the Applicant should be separated from the Navy with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) characterization of service.  The command and Separation Authority approved the ASB’s recommendations and discharged him accordingly. 

:  (Decisional) ()  .  The Applicant contends his discharge is not representative of his 19 years and 7 months of Naval service with zeal, obedience, and fidelity.  The Applicant received an Honorable discharge in three previous enlistments from January 1992 to April 2008.  Each period of enlistment is an independent obligation and characterization is determined for that specific period of time.  In his fourth enlistment, the Applicant was found guilty at NJP of violating UCMJ Articles 111 and 112a.  Despite a servicemember’s prior record of service, certain serious offenses, even though isolated, warrant separation from the  to maintain proper order and discipline.  Violation of Article 112a is one such offense requiring mandatory processing for administrative separation regardless of grade, performance, or time in service.  This usually results in an unfavorable characterization of discharge or, at a maximum, a punitive discharge and possible confinement if adjudicated and awarded as part of a sentence by a special or general court-martial.  However, his command did not pursue a punitive discharge but opted instead for the more lenient administrative discharge.  The NDRB found the characterization of the Applicant’s discharge was equitable and consistent with the characterization of discharge given others in similar circumstances.  Relief denied.

:  (Decisional) ()  .  The Applicant contends his one incident of misconduct was a result of extreme duress brought on by hazing at his command and PTSD from his most recent deployment.  The NDRB requested all records of medical treatment, both active duty and post-service, from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).  These records contained no documentation that mentioned any evaluations, diagnoses, or treatments for PTSD or other mental health concerns.  His separation physical completed at Branch Medical Clinic, Marine Corps Base Hawaii, Kaneohe Bay, HI on 10 August 2011 indicates he did not have PTSD.  Moreover, the Applicant did not provide any evidence of a diagnosis of PTSD from any other private mental health treatment provider to document his claim.  The NDRB found no evidence in the record of any indications of, or diagnosis for, PTSD.  Additionally, there is no evidence in either the Applicant’s service record or the documentation he provided that demonstrated any problems or symptoms manifesting during his enlistment from his tour with VR-51.  Furthermore, the Applicant’s record does not document any attempts to seek help for any combat stress-related symptoms or stress related to being hazed while in service.  Lacking any evidence of PTSD or hazing, the NDRB is unable to establish this contention as a basis for mitigation or consideration as an extenuating circumstance.  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.  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 Board found   Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall   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.

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