ex-HM3, USN
ND07-00672

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received:  20070420 	 Characterization Received:  
Narrative Reason:  MISCONDUCT COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE 	Authority:  MILPERSMAN 1910-142

Applicant’s Request:	Characterization change to:  
			Narrative Reason change to: REQUESTED, BUT NOT SPECIFIED
Applicant’s Issues:	1. Re-instatement, change to re-enlistment code
			2. Did not commit misconduct
			3. Discharge not warranted 

Decision

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

Date:  20071205			Location:  Washington D.C	 Representation:  

Discussion

Issue 1:   either  which the Board cannot form the basis of relief for the Applicant, or  the Board does not have the authority to grant the relief for which the Applicant petitioned.  The Applicant is directed to the Addendum regarding .

Issue 2 ().  The Applicant denies having committed a serious offense, specifically larceny of a government laptop computer, and indicates that a former girlfriend was paid by a rival for her affections to lie about the Applicant’s culpability.  The Board found that the Applicant’s service record did not contain evidence that the Applicant had received any disciplinary action as a result of this incident, nor did it contain the administrative discharge paperwork.  Commission of a serious offense does not require adjudication by nonjudicial, judicial proceedings or civilian conviction; however, the offense must be substantiated by a preponderance of evidence.  The government is entitled to a presumption of regularity in the conduct of its affairs, to include the presumption that separation authorities act reasonably and in good faith in determining that a factual basis for discharge exists.  The Board noted that the Applicant’s submission, which appeared to include parts of the command inquiry into the event, contained conflicting evidence regarding the Applicant’s culpability; however, it is not unusual to have to sort through conflicting evidence in order to determine the facts of the case.  The Board determined that the statements and documents provided by the Applicant were not sufficient to convince the Board that it should not rely on the presumption of regularity in this case.

Issue 3 ().  While the record is not explicit, the Board concluded from the Applicant’s submission that the serious offense for which he was discharged was larceny of a government laptop computer.  Such an offense is a violation of Article 121 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and constitutes a serious offense, i.e. one for which a punitive discharge is authorized, for the purposes of administrative separation for the reason of misconduct – commission of a serious offense.  As noted above, the Board found that the presumption of regularity attaching to determination that the Applicant had committed the offense was not overcome in this case, and further found that discharge was not inappropriate for this type of offense.

In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of Government affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the Applicant.  After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Medical and Service Record Entries, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found that 

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive: USNR (DEP)	20010301 - 20010204  		Active:   	
Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment: 20010205	Years Contracted:  ; Extension:  	Date of Discharge:  20030808
Length of Service:  02  Yrs  06  Mths  04  Dys	Lost Time:  Days UA:    Days Confined:  
Education Level:  	Age at Enlistment:  	AFQT:  57	Highest Rank/Rate:  HM3
Evaluation marks (# of occasions):	Performance:  3.5(2)	Behavior:  4.0(2)	 	OTA:  3.59 
Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):  NDSM, PISTOL EX

Medical/Service Record Entries Related to Characterization of Service or Basis for Discharge

None.

Discharge Process

Date Notified:					
Reason for Discharge:	
Least Favorable Characterization:	

Date Applicant Responded to Notification:		NOT FOUND IN RECORD 
Rights Elected at Notification:  			NOT FOUND IN RECORD

Commanding Officer Recommendation (date):	
Separation Authority (date):	 
Date Applicant Discharged:	20030808

Types of Documents Submitted by Applicant and Considered By Board

Related to Military Service:	Service and/or Medical Record:  		Other Records:  

Related to Post-Service Period:  	
	Employment:  			Finances:  			Education: 		
	Health/Medical Records:  		Substance Abuse:			Criminal Records:  	
	Family/Personal Status: 		Community Service:  		References:  		
	
Additional Statements From Applicant:  	From Representative:    		Other Documentation (Describe) 

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), re-issued October 2002, effective 22 August 2002 until 25 January 2004, Article 1910-142 [formerly 3630605], 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 II, Para 211, Regularity of Government Affairs, Part V, Para 502, Propriety and Para 503, Equity.

ADDENDUM:  Information for the Applicant

Complaint Procedures:  If you believe that 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:  Subsequent to a document review, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application is received at the NDRB within 15 years from the 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.  If a former member has been discharged for more than 15 years, has already been granted a personal appearance hearing or has otherwise exhausted his opportunities before the NDRB, the Applicant may petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR), 2 Navy Annex, Washington, DC 20370-5100 for further review.

Service Benefits:  The Veterans Administration determines eligibility for post-service benefits, not the Naval Discharge Review Board.  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 Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment or educational opportunities.  Regulations limit the Board’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 Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) can make changes to reenlistment codes.  Additionally, the Board 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 subsequently is processed for an administrative involuntary separation for misconduct, the disability evaluation is suspended.  The Physical Evaluation Board case remains in suspense pending the outcome of the non-disability proceedings.  If the action includes either a punitive or administrative discharge for misconduct, 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 “PTSD.”  Only the Board for Correction of Naval Records can grant this type of narrative reason change.  

Automatic Upgrades - There is no law or regulation, which provides that an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving Naval service.  The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge 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.  Examples of documentation that may be provided to the Board include proof of educational pursuits, verifiable employment records, documentation of community service, credible evidence of a substance free lifestyle and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities.  

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 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.  

Board Membership:  The names and votes of the members of the 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