ex- AZAA, 

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20160512
Characterization of Service Received:   
Narrative Reason for Discharge:   MISCONDUCT (SERIOUS OFFENSE)
Authority for Discharge:   MILPERSMAN 1910-142 [COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE] 

Applicant’s Request:	Characterization change to:	
Narrative Reason change to: NONE REQUESTED
Reentry Code change to: NONE REQUESTED

Summary of Service

Prior Creditable Service:
Inactive:	 	            	Active:	 

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment:  20120103	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Extension
Date of Discharge:  20131004	Highest Rank/Rate:  AZAN
Length of Service:   Year(s)     Month(s)   02 Day(s)
Education Level:  	AFQT:  61

Evaluation Marks (# of occasions):  Performance/Proficiency: 3.0 (2)   Behavior/Conduct: 2.0 (2)   OTA: 2.84 
Fitness Reports: 

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	Pistol  NDSM NAVY "E" GWOTSM 

Periods of UA:  NONE
Periods of CONF:  NONE
Other Time Lost per DD214:  NONE

NJP:  

- 20130709:	Article 111 (Drunk or reckless operation of vehicle, aircraft, or vessel) 
	Awarded:       Suspended:   

SCM:     SPCM:  

CIVIL ARREST:  

- 20130616:	Charges:  DUI [Extracted from Commanding Officer letter dated 20131012]

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 1910-142”

The NDRB will recommend to Commander, Navy Personnel Command or Commandant of the Marine Corps that the DD 214 be corrected as appropriate.

Types of Documents Submitted/reviewed

	DD 214:		Service/Medical Record:		Other Records:	
	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:	
 
Types of Witnesses Who Testified

	Expert:  			Character:    

	Witness E-1:			Witness C-1:	
	Witness E-2:			Witness C-2:

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560D), Change 43, effective 31 May 2013 until Present, Article 1910-142, SEPARATION BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT - COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE.

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.

C.  The Manual for Courts-Martial authorizes the award of a punitive discharge if adjudged as part of the sentence upon conviction by a special or general court-martial for violation of the UCMJ, Article 111.

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

Applicant’s Issues

1.	The Applicant requests an upgrade to be a Police Officer or Fire Fighter.
2.	The Applicant does not dispute misconduct or present any MH issue but does suggest his behavior was due to immaturity.
3.	The discharge was improper as the Applicant was not referred for substance abuse screening following his first alcohol-related incident.
4.	The discharge characterization was unduly harsh because Applicant’s misconduct was used to send message to the command.
5.	The discharge characterization was unduly harsh as it does not reflect his true character.

Discussion

Date:  20180313		Location:  WASHINGTON D.C.	Representation:  

The Naval Discharge Review Board (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 completed a thorough review of the circumstances that led to the discharge and the discharge process to ensure the pertinent standards of equity and propriety were met.

The Applicant's record of service included:

•	No s but did include an Executive Officer’s Inquiry following an occasion in February 2013 when he had permitted young women under the age of 21 to consume alcohol in his barracks room.

•	  for an Article 111  of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), after his civilian arrest in June 2016 for being found asleep behind the wheel of a parked car with a blood alcohol level over the legal limit.

Based on the Article 111  committed by the Applicant, the command administratively processed the Applicant for separation. When notified of administrative separation processing, the Applicant  his rights to consult with a qualified counsel and submit a written statement.   The Commanding Officer recommended a General Under Honorable Conditions characterization for Misconduct – Commission of a Serious Offense.

The separation package from the command indicates that the squadron had a

:  The Applicant is seeking an upgrade to his characterization of service in order to be eligible for employment as a Police Officer or Fire Fighter.  He has applied to various departments in the Hampton Roads, Virginia, vicinity and an Honorable discharge is required of former service member.  The Board did consider the Applicant to be a man of integrity and a person who has excellent potential to benefit society at large.  However, 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.  Relief denied.

:  The Applicant contends his misconduct was the result of youth and immaturity.  The NDRB acknowledges that many of our servicemembers are young at the time they enlist for service; however, most still manage to serve honorably.  While some members may be less mature than others, the NDRB does not view a member’s claim of immaturity to be a mitigating factor or a sufficient reason for misconduct.  The Applicant had the advantage over other young sailors of having a Chief Petty Officer as a father, so he was already well versed in the Navy Core Values.  Moreover, he had been granted a warning with his alcohol-related barracks incident only months prior to his DUI.  Relief denied.

Issue 3:  The Board considered whether the Applicant’s discharge was improper as the Applicant was not referred for substance abuse screening following his first alcohol-related incident.  The Board did not find this improper as it was not the applicant’s personal use of alcohol that led to him being counselled but instead his decision to serve alcohol to adults under the legal drinking age; this action does not indicate an individual problem with alcohol usage that would require substance abuse screening.  Although not required, however, referral would have been a reasonable course of action on the part of the command.  Potentially, had he been enrolled in the IMPACT class, he would have made a wiser decision on the night he later opted to drive after drinking; thus, on an equity basis and in tandem with consideration of the following issues, a minority of the board voted for upgrade.  Relief denied.

Issue 4:  The discharge characterization was unduly harsh because the Applicant’s misconduct was used to send a message to the command.  The Applicant testified regarding four named members of his squadron who were arrested for DUIs in the year prior to the Applicant’s; all these members were retained under the previous CO.  The new CO – formerly the XO – was clearly aware of this pattern of problems within the unit.  In the separation package, specific mention is made that alcohol-related misconduct will no longer be tolerated.   On an equity basis and in tandem with consideration of Issues 3 and 5, a minority of the board voted for upgrade.  However, the majority of the Board recognized that different commanding officers will weigh certain infractions differently, and there is no impropriety or inequity in doing so.  Relief denied

Issue 5:	The discharge characterization was unduly harsh as it does not reflect his true character.  The Applicant provided forthright testimony regarding his mistakes and his regret regarding those actions.  All members of the Board found him to be upright and honorable.  The child of a Chief and currently the spouse of a naval officer, he is now a father as well and desirous of maintaining a good example for his child.  Within his package, he had letters of recommendation, in specific support of this upgrade request, from a Navy Captain and a Limited Duty Officer attesting to his overall character.  He also had a letter of recommendation for employment from his CO written at the time of his discharge; the Board was impressed with this document in particular and, on an equity basis and in tandem with consideration of the following issues, a minority of the board voted for upgrade.  However, a majority of the Board believed that his character was already considered when he was awarded the General discharge, given other factors such as his short duration of service, his lack of highly honorable achievements, and that an OTH discharge is a potential characterization of discharge in DUI cases.  Relief denied

The NDRB recognizes that serving in the all-volunteer Armed Forces is challenging but reflects a commitment to our Nation; thus, service members deserve to be recognized upon completion of their service.  One of the ways in which our service members are recognized is through the determination of their characterization of service.  Most servicemembers, however, serve honorably and therefore earn their Honorable discharges.  In fairness to those Marines and Sailors who served honorably, Commanders and Separation Authorities are tasked to ensure that undeserving servicemembers receive no higher characterization than is due.  The NDRB found the characterization of the Applicant’s discharge was equitable and consistent with the characterization of discharge given others in similar circumstances.

Decision

After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s issues, summary of service,  record entries, and discharge process, the Board found .  Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall  GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS), the narrative reason for separation shall  MISCONDUCT - COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE with a corresponding separation code of JKQ, and the reentry code shall  RE-3D.  The Applicant is not eligible for further reviews by the NDRB.  The Applicant may petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records, 701 South Courthouse Road, Suite 1001, Arlington, VA 22204-2490 for further review using DD Form 149.  

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/.  More information is available at http://www.secnav.navy.mil/mra/CORB/pages/ndrb/default.aspx.

Additional Reviews: After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance or telephonic 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, or http://www.secnav.navy.mil/mra/bcnr/Pages/default.aspx 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: Effective 6 February 2015, the NDRB is authorized to change a NDRB Applicant’s Reenlistment Code if related to an accompanying change in discharge characterization or narrative, but this authority is strictly limited to those cases where an applicant’s narrative reason or characterization of discharge is changed and that change warrants revision of the previously issued reenlistment code.  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-Traumatic Stress Disorder and/or Traumatic Brain Injury: For all claims involving PTSD and/or TBI, the NDRB’s review implemented the guidance set forth in the SECDEF Memorandum of 3 September 2014 (Supplemental guidance to Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Discharge Upgrade Requests by Veterans Claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder).  In accordance with U.S. Code, Title X, Section 1553 (d)(1) & d(2), the NDRB included a member who is a physician, clinical psychologist, or psychiatrist and accorded the case sufficient priority to achieve an expedited resolution and a final decision.

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.

Military Sexual Trauma: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) uses the term "military sexual trauma" (MST) to refer to experiences of sexual assault or repeated, threatening sexual harassment experienced while on federal active duty, active duty for training, or inactive duty training.  To get confidential one-on-one help please contact the MST Coordinator at your nearest VA Medical Center or Call Safe Helpline at 1-877-995-5247 or visit www.mentalhealth.va.gov/msthome.asp.

Reporting Military Sexual Trauma: To report a military sexual trauma, you can make an anonymous report to the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) by Text or Online.  The NCIS Tip Line provides service members, veterans and civilians a safe, discreet and ANONYMOUS option to report criminal and force protection threats within the USN and USMC without concerns of retaliation.  To report a crime by Text: Text  274637 (CRIMES); Type “NCIS” at the top of the message; and include as much detail as possible to ensure your tip can effectively be investigated.  To send your ANONYMOUS Tip via the online, go to https://www.tipsubmit.com/webtipsNAV.aspx?AgencyID=840.

Suicide Prevention: Veterans in emotional crisis or their loved ones can call the free and confidential Veterans Crisis Line at 1-800-273-8255 (then press 1); or chat online at http://www.veteranscrisisline.net, or send a text message to 838255 to connect with a caring, qualified Veteran Affairs Responder who can deal with any immediate crisis.