ex-FR, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20090421
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)	20000814 - 20010729  	Active:	

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment:  20010730	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Extension
Date of Discharge:  20040129	Highest Rank/Rate:  FN
Length of Service:   Year(s)     Month(s)   26 Day(s)
Education Level:  	AFQT:  39
Evaluation Marks:	Performance:  2.0 (2)	Behavior:  2.0 (2)	OTA:  2.00

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	 

Period of UA:  20031128-20031129 (1 DAY)

NJP:  
- 20020408:	Article 92 (Failure to obey an order or regulation)
	Awarded:    Suspended:  

- 20030918:	Article 86 (UA) 
	Awarded:    ADMIN COUNSELING WARNING   Suspended:   

- 20031227:	Article 86 (UA), 6 specifications
	Article 92 (Failure to obey an order or regulation)
	Awarded:      Suspended:  

SCM:  	SPCM:  	CC:  

Retention Warning Counseling:  

- 20030918:	For violation of the UCMJ as evidenced by the Commanding Officer’s NJP held on 20030918.

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/To Representation:		From/To 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 1910-140, SEPARATION BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT - PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT.

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.

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

Applicant’s Issues

1.	Injustice for him to suffer consequences of bad discharge.	
2.	Under current standards he would not receive this discharge.
3.	Only isolated minor offenses.
4. 	Youth and immaturity.
5. 	Personal and financial problems. 
6.	Post-service conduct.

Decision

Date:  20091217		Location:  Washington D.C.	Representation:  

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

Discussion

The 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 Applicant’s record of service included one NAVPERS 1070/613 (Page 13) warning, and three nonjudicial punishments (NJPs) for  of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 86 (Unauthorized absences (UAs) – 7 specifications) and Article 92 (Failure to obey a lawful order – 2 specifications).  When notified of administrative separation processing, the Applicant waived  rights to consult with qualified counsel, submit a written statement, and request a review by the general court-martial convening authority.  

Issues 1–5:  (Decisional) ()  .  The Applicant is seeking an upgrade to Honorable and has submitted a checklist list of issues that he retracted from a self-help guide for the Board’s consideration.  They are identified as follows: 1) it is an injustice for him to suffer the adverse consequences of a bad discharge; 2) under current standards he would not receive the discharge that he did; 3) his NJP’s only represent isolated or minor offenses, 4) his ability to serve was impaired by his youth and immaturity,  and 5) his personal and financial problems also impaired his ability to serve.  The Applicant provided no documentation for the Board’s consideration.  When the quality of a service member has met the standards of accepted conduct and performance of duty for military personnel, it is appropriate to characterize that service under “Honorable” conditions.  A “General (Under Honorable Conditions)” is appropriate if the member’s service has been honest and faithful but significant negative aspects of the member’s conduct or performance outweighs positive aspects of the member’s military record.  The Board concluded that a preponderance of the evidence of record supports the basis for separation due to a pattern of misconduct, and an upgrade to Honorable is not warranted based on the frequency and the seriousness of the offenses committed by the Applicant.  Based upon a review of available records, there is no indication that the Applicant’s discharge would have been more favorable under current standards of discipline in the United States Navy.  The characterization of service was equitable and appropriate for the offenses he committed.

The Board also found that Applicant’s contention that his offenses were isolated or minor is without merit.  The aforementioned evidence that indicates that the Applicant had three NJP’s during his enlistment that included two violations of a lawful order, which are considered as serious offenses and if adjudicated at a court-martial could have resulted in a punitive discharge.  Additionally, the Applicant did not provide any evidence to support his contentions that his youth, immaturity, personal problems and financial problems impaired his ability to serve.  Furthermore, the Applicant provides no documented information that he informed his chain of command of his personal and financial problems and did not receive the assistance, guidance, or support he requested.  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.  

Issue 6:  (Decisional) ().  The Applicant indicated that he has been a good citizen since his discharge.  The Applicant failed to provide any documentary evidence on his behalf for post-service consideration.  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 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. 

The Board determined the Applicant’s request for an upgrade based on post-service conduct without documentation to support the same, was not sufficient to form a basis of relief.  On page 4, Item 8, in the instructions for completion of DD Form 293, the Applicant is notified to submit evidence “which substantiate or relate directly to your issues in Item 6.” (Issues: Why an upgrade or change is requested and justification for the request).  Additionally, upon receipt of the Applicant’s DD Form 293, the NDRB mails an acceptance letter that includes the Information Concerning Review Procedures, which discusses the submission of additional documents in paragraph 3, Submission of Evidence, and in the last section on page 4, Information Pertaining to a Review Based Upon Post-Service Conduct.  However, even if the Applicant could have produced additional evidence to support a review based on his post-service conduct, the Applicant should be aware that post-service conduct alone does not guarantee an upgrade.  

Summary:  After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service,  record entries, and discharge process, the Board found   Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall   and the narrative reason for separation shall remain .

The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing for a period of fifteen years from the date of  discharge.  The Applicant is directed to the Addendum, specifically the paragraphs titled Additional Reviews and Automatic Upgrades.

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.”

Additional Reviews:  After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance 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 Association of Service Disable 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 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 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:  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 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 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.  

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