Title: DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
Author: CAP
Last saved by: janet.goode
Company: NCPB

Docket No. ND09-00530

ex-MMFN, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20090107
Characterization of Service Received:  UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS
Narrative Reason for Discharge: IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT MARTIAL
Authority for Discharge:  MILPERSMAN 1910-106 (IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT MARTIAL)

Applicant’s Request:  Characterization change to:  GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)
		       Narrative Reason change to:  NONE REQUESTED

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive: USNR (DEP)	20000525 - 20001029  COG	Active:	NONE

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment:  20001030	Age at Enlistment:  18
Period of Enlistment:  4 Years  NO Extension
Date of Discharge:  20030813	Highest Rank/Rate:  MMFN
Length of Service:  02 Year(s)   09  Month(s)   14 Day(s)
Education Level:  8	AFQT:  59
Evaluation Marks:	Performance:  NFIR	Behavior:  NFIR	OTA:  NFIR

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	NDSM 

Periods of UA/CONF:	20020417-20020418 (2 days) DD Form 214
	20020821 - 20020828 (8 days) DD Form 214
	20020827 - 20020927 (21 days) Record of unauthorized absence
	20021011 - 20030626 (235 days) Charge sheet specification

NJP:  NONE	SCM:  NONE	SPCM:  NONE		CC:  NONE

Retention Warning Counseling: 1

- 20010309:	For your diagnosis of Petellofemoral Syndrome of the knees and recommended for follow-up care with a medical officer.

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

The NDRB did note administrative error(s) on the original DD Form 214:

	Block 29, Dates of Time Lost During This Period, should read “20020417-20020418, 20020827-20020917, 20021011-20030626.”

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:	☐	Substance Abuse:		☐	Criminal Records:	☐

Related to Post-Service Period (cont):

	Family/Personal Status:	☐	Community Service:	☐	References:		☐
              Additional Statements:
                             From Applicant:  ☒	From Representation:         ☐	From Congress member:    ☐

                    Other Documentation:  ☐

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), re-issued October 2002, effective 22 August 2002 until 
25 January 2004, Article 1910-106, SEPARATION IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT-MARTIAL.

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)(b), 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 86.

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

Applicant’s Issues

1.  Reenlistment opportunity.
2.  Record of service.
3.  Mitigating circumstances.
4.  Post-service conduct.

Decision

Date:  20090402	DOCUMENTARY REVIEW	Location:  Washington D.C.	Representation:  NONE

By a vote of 5-0 the Characterization shall remain UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS.
By a vote of 5-0 the Narrative Reason shall remain IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT MARTIAL.

Discussion

Issue 1:  This is either an Issue which the Board cannot form the basis of relief for the Applicant, or one the Board does not have the authority to grant the relief for which the Applicant petitioned.  The Applicant is directed to the Addendum, specifically the paragraph concerning Reenlistment/RE Codes, regarding this Issue.

Issue 2:  (Equity)  RELIEF NOT WARRANTED.  The Applicant contends his discharge should be upgraded based on his record of service.  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.  The Applicant’s record of service was marred by at least four periods of unauthorized absence in violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ):  Article 86 (UA), including one period of unauthorized absence for 235 days. Violation of Article 86 for more than thirty days is considered a serious offense which could have resulted in a punitive discharge and confinement if adjudicated and awarded as part of a sentence by a special or general court-martial.  The command referred the Applicant for trial by special court-martial but accepted the Applicant’s request for an “Under Other Than Honorable Conditions” discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.  Despite a Sailor’s prior record of service, certain serious offenses, even though isolated, warrant separation from the naval service in order to maintain proper order and discipline.  The NDRB determined the awarded discharge was appropriate and an upgrade founded upon the Applicant’s record of service would be inappropriate.

Issue 3:  (Equity)  RELIEF NOT WARRANTED.   The Applicant contends he is entitled to a discharge upgrade due to circumstances which mitigated his misconduct; specifically he contends his wife’s pregnancy lead to his decision to go UA. The Applicant provides no documented information he informed his chain of command of family problems and did not receive the assistance, leave or help he asked for.  Additionally, the Applicant makes no mention of, nor provides documented proof, if he attempted to use any one of the numerous family support programs sponsored by or for military service members.  These programs and services, such as Family Advocacy, Navy – Marine Corps Relief Society, Red Cross, the Chaplain, or even Navy medical health personnel if needed, all provide services to members of the military, regardless of grade, in times of need. While the NDRB understands a wife’s pregnancy can be both a rewarding and trying time for all involved, it is not sufficient justification for abandoning one’s military duties and entering into an unauthorized absence status.  The Board determined the awarded discharge was appropriate and an upgrade would be inappropriate. 

Issue 4:  (Equity)  RELIEF NOT WARRANTED.   The Applicant contends he is entitled to a discharge upgrade because of his post-service conduct.  The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge.  However, there is no law or regulation, which provides an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in the civilian life subsequent to leaving the service.  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 help support a post service conduct upgrade includes, but is not limited to: a verifiable continuous employment record; marriage and children’s 

birth certificate (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; 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 previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member’s overall character. 

The Applicant provided evidence of employment and training with his DD-293 Application. While the Board applauds the Applicant’s post service efforts, the Board determined the evidence of post-service conduct is not sufficient to warrant a discharge upgrade. To warrant an upgrade the Applicant’s post service efforts need to be more encompassing.  The Applicant could have produced additional evidence as stated in the above paragraph with the full understanding completion of these items alone does not guarantee an upgrade.  The Board determined the characterization of service received, “Under Other Than Honorable Conditions”, was an appropriate characterization considering the length of service and the UCMJ violations involved, and based on the limited post service documentation provided an upgrade would be inappropriate.

After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Service  Record Entries, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found the discharge was proper and equitable.

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 or is referred to a court martial 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 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 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 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 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

Key:	NFIR - Not Found In Record 	UA – Unauthorized absence	NJP – Non-judicial punishment	SCM – Summary court-martial
	SPCM – Special court-martial	FOP – Forfeiture of pay	RIR – Reduction in rank	EPD – Extra Duties
	CONF – Confinement	CC - Civilian conviction	CCU - Correctional Custody Unit	BW – Confinement on bread and water

Key:	NFIR - Not Found In Record 	UA – Unauthorized absence	NJP – Nonjudicial punishment	SCM – Summary court-martial	
	SPCM – Special court-martial	FOP – Forfeiture of pay	RIR – Reduction in rank	EPD – Extra Duties 
	CONF – Confinement		B&W – Confinement on bread and water