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

Docket No. ND09-00642

ex-SK3, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20090126
Characterization of Service Received:  GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)
Narrative Reason for Discharge: MISCONDUCT COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE
Authority for Discharge:  MILPERSMAN 1910-142 (COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE)

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

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive: USNR (DEP)	19980529 - 19980921  COG	Active:	NONE

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment:  19980922	Age at Enlistment:  19
Period of Enlistment:  4 Years  31 MONTHS Extension
Date of Discharge:  20040520	Highest Rank/Rate:  SK2
Length of Service:  05 Year(s)   07  Month(s)   29 Day(s)
Education Level:  12	AFQT:  69
Evaluation Marks:	Performance:  3.4 (7)	Behavior:  2.5 (7)	OTA:  3.06

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	SSDR (2) AFEM (2) NDSM NMCOSM (2) MUC NUC NAVY "E"

Periods of UA/CONF:  NONE   SCM:  NONE   SPCM:  NONE   CC:  NONE

NJP:  2
- 20020115:	Article 128 (Assault)
	Article 134 (Drunk and disorderly)
	Article 95 (Resisting, flight, breach of arrest, and escape) 
	Awarded: RIR RESTR EPD  Suspended:  NONE   RIR set aside in accordance with MCM Part V, paragraph 6D 20020612

- 20040309:	Article 86 (UA)
	Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation)
	Awarded: RIR FOP RESTR EPD  Suspended:  FOP

Retention Warning Counseling:  1

- 20020127:	For three violations of the UCMJ, Article 128 (Assault); Article 134 (Drunk and disorderly) and Article 95 (Resisting, flight, breach of arrest and escape) on 20020115 and one violation of the UCMJ, Article 86 (Unauthorized absence) on 20000411. 

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

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

	Block 25, Separation Authority, should read: “MILPERSMAN 1910-142”
	
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:	☐
	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 April 2005, 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 II, Para 211, Regularity of Government Affairs, Part V, Para 502, Propriety and Para 503, Equity.

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 (UA); Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation); Article 95 (Resisting, flight, breach of arrest, and escape); Article 128 (Assault) and Article 134 (Drunk and disorderly).

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

Applicant’s Issues

1.  Desires G I Bill.
Decision

Date:  20090416	DOCUMENTARY REVIEW	Location:  Washington D.C.	Representation:  NONE

By a vote of 5-0 the Characterization shall remain GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS).
By a vote of 5-0 the Narrative Reason shall remain MISCONDUCT (COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE).

Discussion

Issue 1:  The Applicant contends he is entitled to a discharge upgrade for the G I Bill benefits.  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 Service Benefits, regarding this Issue.

The Applicant did not identify any Issues to the Board.  However, the Board did complete a thorough review of the circumstances which led to his discharge and the discharge process to ensure his discharge met the pertinent standards of equity and propriety.  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 1 retention warning and 2 NJPs for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 86 (UA); Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation); Article 95 (Resisting, flight, breach of arrest, and escape); Article 128 (Assault) and Article 134 (Drunk and disorderly).  Violations of Article 92, Article 95, and Article 128 are considered serious and could have resulted in a punitive discharge if adjudicated and awarded as part of a sentence at a Special or General Court-Martial.  The command did not pursue a punitive discharge but opted instead for an administrative discharge based on the commission of a serious offense.

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.

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.  Should the Applicant feel their post service conduct becomes substantial enough to warrant a personal appearance, there are veteran’s organizations, such as the American Legion, willing to provide guidance to assist former service members in their efforts to obtain a discharge upgrade.  

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