ex-SN, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20090227
Characterization of Service Received:  
Narrative Reason for Discharge: 
Authority for Discharge:  MILPERSMAN 

Applicant’s Request:  Characterization change to:  
		       Narrative Reason change to:  

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive:	USNR (DEP)	19921104 - 19921108  	Active:	

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment:  19921109	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Extension
Date of Discharge:  19960703	Highest Rank/Rate:  SN
Length of Service:   Year(s)     Month(s)   25 Day(s)
Education Level:  	AFQT:  46
Evaluation Marks:	Performance:  3.5 (2)	Behavior:  3.2 (2)	OTA:  3.40

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	   

Periods of UA/CONF:  UA:  19930816, 19930818 (2 days); 19931130, 19931202 (2 days); 19940105, 19940106 (1 day); 19940301, 19940316 (15 days); 19940502, 19940506 (4 days); 19950104, 19950105 (1 day); 19950227, 19950302 (3 days); 19950318, 19950319 (1 day); 19950320, 19950322 (2 days); 19950628, 19950706 (8 days); 19950710, 19950711 (1 day); 19950712, 19950728 (16 days); 19950802, 19960126 (177 days) / CONF:  

NJP:  
- 19940716:	Article 81 (Conspiracy)
	Article 86 (UA 0730, 19940301 - 1600, 19940316 (15 days))
	Article 87 (Missing movement)
	Article 107 (False official statement)
	Awarded:   Suspended:  

SCM:     SPCM:     CC:  

Retention Warning Counseling:  

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:  

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

Applicant’s Issues

1. Employment opportunities.
2. “Pursue my dream of going to college.”
3. Completed the hardship separation paperwork, but the chain of command did not do as they were supposed to do.

Decision

Date:  20090528		Location:  Washington D.C.	Representation:  

By a vote of  the Characterization shall  .
By a vote of  the Narrative Reason shall  IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT MARTIAL.

Discussion

:   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, specifically the paragraph concerning , regarding .

Issue 3:  ()  .  The Applicant contends he is entitled to a discharge upgrade because his command did not process his hardship [parenthood] discharge request.  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 one NJP for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ):  Article 81 (Conspiracy); Article 86 (UA, 15 days); Article 87 (Missing ship’s movement); and Article 107 (False official statement).  These are considered serious offenses 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 decided to bring court-martial charges against the Applicant for further violations of the UCMJ: Article 86 (UA), 7 specifications totaling over 201 days.  The NDRB presumes the material facts stated in a court-martial specification to be established facts.  After receiving the court-martial charges, the Applicant submitted a request (dated March 27, 1996) for administrative discharge under general conditions in lieu of trial by court-martial and also requested a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge.  The Applicant had consulted with counsel and was fully advised of the implications of his request.  The Applicant understood that if discharged under other than honorable conditions, it might deprive him of virtually all veterans' benefits based upon his current enlistment, and that he might expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life in situations wherein the type of service rendered in any branch of the Armed Forces, or the character of discharge received there from may have a bearing. The Applicant’s request for an administrative discharge under general conditions in lieu of trial by court-martial was accepted, but his request for a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge was denied.

The Applicant states he could not provide a copy of his hardship discharge package because it was destroyed by a fire in his house in 2000, but provided no evidence of the house fire.  The record of evidence shows the Applicant was having difficulty in balancing his military career and caring for his children.  In the CO, Transient Personnel Unit, Norfolk, letter 1910 Ser TPU:01L2/0688 of 29 Apr 96 (which references a CO, USS George Washington letter 5863 Ser 15/01447 of 23 Sep 95) it states, “SN Curtis was assisted by his chain-of-command at every step of the way in trying to find adequate child care and collecting the necessary document to support a parenthood discharge.” “SN Curtis failed, however, to follow the necessary steps to secure a discharge under more favorable conditions by his lack of cooperation in producing the required paperwork and satisfying his military obligations.  It is equally disturbing that his division officer reported that his [the Applicant’s] wife indicated that SN Curtis obtained custody of his children through mutual agreement rather than absolute necessity.”  Based on the record of evidence, the NDRB determined the awarded discharge was appropriate and an upgrade would be inappropriate.

For the Applicant’s edification, 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 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; attendance or completion of higher education (official transcripts); and documentation of alcohol non-dependency and 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.

Besides the Applicant’s statement on the DD Form 293, he only provided a copy of a letter from his ex-wife, dated 12-19-93.  The Board determined the evidence of post-service conduct was not sufficient enough to warrant an upgrade of his discharge characterization. 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 NDRB determined the awarded discharge was appropriate 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,   Record Entries, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found   

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 9, effective 22 July 1994 until 2 October 1996, 
Article 3630650, PROCEDURES FOR PROCESSING ENLISTED PERSONNEL FOR 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 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 81 (Conspiracy), Article 86 (UA), Article 87 (Missing movement), and  Article 107 (False official statement). 

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 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:  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 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 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 NDRB 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 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