ex-HR, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20140717
Characterization of Service Received:   
Narrative Reason for Discharge:   
Authority for Discharge:   MILPERSMAN 

Applicant’s Request:	Characterization change to:	 or uncharacterized
	Narrative Reason change to:	
	
Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive:	USNR (DEP)	19930918 - 19940724  	Active:	

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment:  19940725	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Extension 
Date of Discharge:  20010313	Highest Rank/Rate:  HM3
Length of Service:   Year(s)     Month(s)   17 Day(s)
Education Level:  	AFQT:  42
Evaluation Marks:	Performance:  3.0 (4)	Behavior:  2.3 (4)	OTA:  2.74

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	Rifle    LoA

Periods of Time Lost per DD Form 214:  19930305 – 19930308 (04); 19990506 – 19990521 (15); 
19990604 – 20010313 (645)

NJP:  	

SCM:  	

SPCM:  

- 19990506:	Article 86 (Absence without leave, on or about 19990211, 0730 to 1000)
	Article 112a (Wrongful use, possession, etc., of controlled substances) 2 specifications
	Specification 1: Did, between about 19990217 and 19990223, wrongfully use marijuana
	Specification 2: Did, between about 19990217 and 19990223, wrongfully use methamphetamine
	Sentence:   45 days 

CC:  

- NFIR:	Offense:  Driving Under the Influence
	Sentence:  NFIR
	[Extracted from Administrative Remarks dated 19961216]

Retention Warning Counseling:  

	

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 22, effective 15 December 1998 to 
21 August 2002, Article 5815-010, Executing a Dishonorable or Bad Conduct Discharge.

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)(a), Presumption Concerning Court-Martial Specifications.

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

Applicant’s Issues

1.	The Applicant implies his head traumas led to his misconduct.
2.	The Applicant implies his post-service conduct warrants an upgrade.

Decision

Date:  20150122		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.  With respect to a discharge adjudged by a court-martial case, 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.  In response to the Applicant's clemency request, relevant and material facts stated in a court-martial specification are presumed by the NDRB to be established facts.  The Applicant's case was considered under the pertinent standards of equity to determine if any factors in this particular case merited clemency.  As a result of the Applicant’s claim of PTSD or TBI, in accordance with U.S. Code, Title X, Section 1553 (d)(1), the Naval Discharge Review 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 Applicant did not specify if his TBI was related to an operational contingency.  The Applicant’s service record documents completion of a deployment in 1998 to Kuwait in support of OPERATION NATIVE FURY.  The Applicant’s record of service included   for  of the UCMJ: Article 86 (Absence without leave, on or about 19990211, 0730 to 1000) and Article 112a (Wrongful use, possession, etc., of controlled substances, 2 specifications; [Specification 1: wrongfully use marijuana] and [Specification 2: wrongfully use methamphetamine]); and one civilian conviction for driving under the influence.  The Applicant’s service record documents a punitive conviction and punishment, as adjudged by a Special Court-Martial, on 06 May 1999.  A qualified legal defense counsel represented the Applicant throughout the trial by Special Court-Martial process.  Given the facts of the case, the Special Court-Martial awarded the Applicant a Bad Conduct Discharge and confinement for a period of 45 days.  The case was submitted for review to the U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals without assignments of error; it was reviewed and the findings were affirmed on 08 March 2000.  Subsequently, the Navy Marine Corps Appellate Leave Activity ordered the Bad Conduct Discharge executed. 

:  (Decisional) ()  .  The Applicant implies his head traumas led to his misconduct.  The Applicant provided in-service mental health records which indicate that he had experienced a motor vehicle accident approximately a year and a half prior to his court-martial.  However, the medical records annotate that all issues had been resolved prior to his misconduct.  Though the Applicant may feel that his head injuries were the underlying cause of his misconduct, the record reflects the Applicant displayed willful misconduct by unauthorized absence and wrongful use of marijuana and methamphetamines.  Similarly, 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.  After an exhaustive review, the NDRB determined that the Applicant’s head injuries do not warrant clemency.  Clemency denied.

:  (Decisional) ()  .  The Applicant implies his post-service conduct warrants an upgrade.  The NDRB considers outstanding post-service conduct to the extent such matters warrant clemency.  The Applicant provided a criminal background check, professional award, real estate license, and four character references.  The Applicant could have produced evidence as stated in the Post-Service Conduct paragraph in the Addendum with the full understanding completion of these items alone does not guarantee clemency.  The NDRB determined that the Applicant’s post-service effort does not warrant clemency.  Clemency 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 remain BAD CONDUCT and the narrative reason for separation shall remain  COURT-MARTIAL.  The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing for a period of fifteen years from the date of his 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