ex- LT, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20200313
Characterization of Service Received:   
Narrative Reason for Discharge:   MISCONDUCT (OTHER)
Authority for Discharge:   SECNAVINST 1920.6C 

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 Appointment:  20110507	Age at Appointment:  22
Period of Enlistment:  Indefinite
Date of Discharge:  20170830	Highest Rank/Rate:  LT
Length of Service:  06  Year(s)  03  Month(s)  24  Day(s)
Education Level:  16	
Deployment/Operation: 

Fitness Reports: 

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	Rifle EX Pistol EX NMCAM NEM GWOTEM SSDR OSWS

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

SCM:     SPCM:     CIVIL ARREST:    CC:     Retention Warning Counseling:  NONE

NJP:  1

- 20160422:	Article 112a (Wrongful use, possession, manufacture or introduction of controlled substance) 
	Awarded:   Suspended:      
	
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.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 1920.6C (ADMINISTRATIVE SEPARATION OF OFFICERS), effective 15 December 2005 until Present, establishes policies, standards and procedures for the administrative separation of Navy and Marine Corps officers from the naval service in accordance with Title 10, United States Code and DoD Directive 1332.30 of 14 March 1997.

B.  Secretary of the Navy Manual 5420.1 of 29 September 2020 (Standards for the execution of the Naval Discharge Review Board).

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

Applicant’s Issues

1.  The Applicant contends his discharge is inequitable because it was based on a one-time lapse in judgment over an otherwise six year period of honorable service.  
2.  The Applicant contends his in-service and post-service conduct and achievement warrants consideration for an upgrade.

Discussion

Date:  20201201		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:

  for  of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): 
Article 112a (Wrongful use, possession, manufacture or introduction of controlled substance) 

Subsequent to the Applicant’s NJP, his Commanding Officer recommended in a Report of NJP that he be Detached for Cause and Show Cause for Retention.  The Applicant provided an endorsement to this Report of NJP.  Naval Personnel Command approved the Detach for Cause and Commander Sub Forces Atlantic concurred that the Applicant Show Cause for Retention while directing a Board of Inquiry (BoI).  The BoI voted 3-0 to misconduct specific the violation of Article 112a and 3-0 to Substandard Performance in that he failed to conform to the prescribed standards of military deportment.  The BoI additionally recommended the Applicant be separated with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) characterization of service.  The Applicant provided an endorsement to the BoI report.  The Assistant Secretary of the Navy (ASN) for Manpower and Reserve Affairs (M&RA) directed a General characterization of service.    

Issues 1-2:  The Applicant contends his discharge is inequitable because it was based on a one-time lapse in judgment over an otherwise six year period of honorable service.  And, the Applicant contends his in-service and post-service conduct and achievement warrants consideration for an upgrade.

In support of these issues, the Applicant provided a personal statement in which he discussed his performance of duties and achievements in his six years of service.  He asserted that his life as a veteran is greatly affected by his General characterization of service.  The Applicant additionally described the circumstances surrounding his use of Marijuana.  Specifically, the Applicant stated that he was in Colorado visiting medical schools and when he was told that he would not be able to enroll in a school for that calendar year, he had a moment of self-doubt.  In this moment, he stated that he made a poor decision to eat a Marijuana cookie and smoke part of a Marijuana joint.  The Applicant further indicated his disbelief in that he went from a well-respected officer to a non-contributor immediately after it was discovered that he used a controlled substance.  The Applicant provided evidence of his current enrollment at Emory University School of Medicine.   Additionally, the Applicant provided three character statements to support his petition.  The provided statements were from a Navy Captain, Navy Commander, and the Associate Dean of Medical Education at Emory College.

In review of the evidence of record, the NDRB found the Applicant served for a period of six years and three months.  During this period, the Applicant completed a Sea Service Deployment; was awarded a Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal and Officer Submarine Warfare Specialist Insignia; and his command selected him as the Junior Officer of the Year.  The Applicant’s evaluations were assessed as above average and they showed strong progression in his performance of duties.  However, the record also shows the Applicant was subject to and found guilty at NJP for violation of Article 112a.  Specifically, the Applicant tested positive on a urinalysis for Marijuana.  Following NJP, the Applicant’s Commanding Officer stated in a Report of NJP that “his use of Marijuana shows disregard for the UCMJ and it is a detriment for shaping moral, good order, and discipline with the command.  His misconduct detracts from the ability of the ship to accomplish the command mission and his continuance in his billet would negatively impact the command.”  The Applicant endorsed this report.  In this endorsement, he acknowledged his actions were selfish and he apologized to his command and fellow sailors.  Upon being Detached for Cause and while awaiting a BoI, the Applicant was assigned to Naval Medical Center Portsmouth where he continued to perform well while carrying out administrative duties and volunteering to teach Yoga classes.  The BoI determined two bases for separation were supported and recommended separation from service.  Specifically, the two bases for separation were Misconduct relating to the Article 112a violation and Substandard Performance.  The Applicant endorsed the BoI’s report to ASN (M&RA).  In his endorsement, the Applicant requested an Honorable characterization and believed the BoI insufficiently considered his superior performance in his six years of service.  He further acknowledged his one time lapse of judgment while highlighting he was consistently ranked ahead of his peers and one Commanding Officer rated him in the top 1% of Junior Officers that he had observed.  The Applicant closed his endorsement by stating that he continued to work hard and uphold Navy Core Values; he was enrolled in Medical School; and he did not want to live with the lifelong stigma associated with a General characterization of service.     

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 standards of discipline of the Naval Service.  

Despite a service member’s prior record of service, certain serious offenses, even though isolated, warrant separation from the Naval Service 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.  The Applicant was found guilty of violation of Article 112a.  However, his command did not pursue a punitive discharge but opted instead for the more lenient administrative discharge.

The characterization of service is determined by the quality of the member’s total performance of duty and conduct during the current period of service, including the reason for separation.  Other considerations shall be given to the member’s length of service, grade, aptitude, and physical and mental condition.  The Applicant’s in-service conduct was noted to be above average prior to his misconduct.  However, his record also included one NJP for violation of Article 112a and this misconduct was a willful failure to meet the standards of conduct expected of a Naval officer.  Furthermore, the NDRB found that his full record of service was sufficiently considered in his Commanding Officer’s Report of NJP, BoI, and his discharge determination.  To this point, ASN (M&RA) considered his full record of service which also included his endorsements to the Report of NJP and BoI.  Upon full review of this case and the matters provided for post-service consideration, the NDRB determined the Applicant’s service was honest and faithful, but significant negative aspects of his conduct or performance of duty outweighed the positive aspects of his service record, and the awarded characterization of service was warranted.  Relief denied.

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 (OTHER) with a corresponding separation code of GKM.  The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing for a period of fifteen years from the date of the 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/.  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: 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.