ex-ETSN, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20120424
Characterization of Service Received:   
Narrative Reason for Discharge:    
Authority for Discharge:   MILPERSMAN 

Applicant’s Request:	Characterization change to:	
	Narrative Reason change to:	COMPLETION OF REQUIRED ACTIVE SERVICE
	
Summary of Service
Prior Service:
Inactive:	USNR (DEP)	20031021 - 20040708  	Active:	

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment:  20040709	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Extension
Date of Discharge:  20060316	Highest Rank/Rate:  ET3
Length of Service:   Year(s)     Month(s)   08 Day(s)
Education Level:  	AFQT:  97
Evaluation Marks:	Performance:  3.5 (2)	Behavior:  2.0 (2)	OTA:  2.58

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	  

Periods of UA/CONF:  

NJP:  	[Extracted from Evaluation dated 20060306]

- 20050323:	Article  (Failure to obey order or regulation)
	Article  (Provoking speeches or gestures)
	Article 134 (General Article, 2 specifications)
	Specification 1: Disorderly conduct, drunkenness
	Specification 2: Unlawful entry   
	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:		Rehabilitation/Treatment:		Criminal Records:	
	Personal Documentation:		Community Service:		References:	
	Department of VA letter:		Other Documentation:	
		Additional Statements:
	From Applicant:		From/To Representation:		From/To Congress member:	

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

Applicant’s Issues

1.	The Applicant contends an adverse reaction with his prescribed Zyban and alcohol led to his misconduct.
2.	The Applicant contends that he was hazed, and it led to his misconduct.
3.	The Applicant contends his commanding officer was biased, because the Applicant had stated his doubts about his military career.
4.	The Applicant contends it was an isolated incident in 20 months, and he received a Navy Marine Corps Achievement Medal.
5.	The Applicant contends his post-service conduct warrants an upgrade.

Decision

Date:  20130221		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   for  of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article  (Failure to obey order or regulation), Article  (Provoking speeches or gestures), and Article 134 (General Article, 2 specifications: Disorderly conduct, drunkenness and Unlawful entry.  Based on the offenses committed by the Applicant,  command administratively processed  for separation.  The NDRB did not have the Applicant’s administrative separation package to determine whether or not the Applicant waived  rights to consult with a qualified counsel, submit a written statement, and request a General Court-Martial Convening Authority review.

:  (Decisional) ()  .  The Applicant contends an adverse reaction with his prescribed Zyban and alcohol led to his misconduct.  Alcohol consumption is never a rationale or an acceptable excuse for inappropriate conduct, misconduct, or poor judgment.  In addition, the Applicant states a “common side effect of mixing alcohol and antidepressants is severe intoxication.”  Willfully consuming alcohol while on medication further demonstrates the Applicant’s inappropriate conduct and poor judgment.  The evidence of record did not show that the Applicant was either not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions.  Relief denied.

:  (Decisional) ()  .  The Applicant contends that he was hazed, and it led to his misconduct.  The Applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support his issue.  There is no evidence in the record, nor has the Applicant produced any evidence, to support the contention that he was hazed.  The Applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity in this case.  Further, the Applicant has failed to demonstrate that he was not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions.  Relief denied.

:  (Decisional) ()  .  The Applicant contends his commanding officer was biased, because the Applicant had stated his doubts about his military career.  The government enjoys a presumption of regularity in the conduct of its affairs.  The Applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support his issue.  There is no evidence in the record, nor has the Applicant produced any evidence, to support the contention that his commanding officer was biased.  The Applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity in this case.  Relief denied.

4:  (Decisional) ()  .  The Applicant contends it was an isolated incident in 20 months, and he received a Navy Marine Corps Achievement Medal.  A review of the Applicant’s records reveals an Early Promote evaluation from 7 September 2004 to 15 October 2005 with no mention of counselings or adjudicated misconduct.  The next evaluation, from 16 October 2005 to 6 March 2006, details finding the Applicant guilty at NJP for violating UCMJ Articles 92, 117, and 134, all of which are considered serious offenses and warrant administrative processing.  To warrant administrative separation processing for a Pattern of Misconduct, however, a service member must have two or more incidents of misconduct and must have violated a Page 13 retention counseling warning.  After a thorough review of the records, the NDRB could not find another incidence of misconduct and a Page 13 retention.  However, Block 25 (Separation Authority) on the Applicant’s DD Form 214 indicates he was separated under Naval Military Personnel Manual Article 1910-142, which pertains to Misconduct (Serious Offense) and not Misconduct (Pattern of Misconduct), which is Article 1910-140.  After a complete review of the records and the Applicant’s statement, the NDRB determined there was an administrative error and that the Narrative Reason for Separation should change from “Pattern of Misconduct” to “Misconduct (Serious Offense)” since the Applicant did commit serious offenses that warranted separation.  The Applicant was administratively separated and not separated upon expiration of enlistment or fulfillment of service obligation.  The characterization of service is determined by the quality of the member’s total performance of duty and conduct during the current enlistment, including the reason for separation.  Other considerations shall be given to the member’s length of service, grade, aptitude, and physical and mental condition.  Based on the Applicant’s record of service, the NDRB determined the Applicant’s service was honest and faithful but significant negative aspects of his conduct or performance of duty outweighed the positive aspects of his service record, and the awarded characterization of service was warranted.  Partial relief granted in changing the Narrative Reason for Separation.

5:  (Decisional) ()  .   The Applicant contends his post-service conduct warrants an upgrade.  The NDRB considers 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.  The Applicant provided a personal statement, evidence of being on the dean’s list, two character references, and two background searches.  The Applicant could have provided documentation as detailed in the Post-Service Conduct paragraph in the Addendum, however, completion of these items alone does not guarantee an upgrade from an unfavorable discharge as each discharge is reviewed by the Board on a case by case basis to determine if post-service conduct establishes that the in-service misconduct was an aberration.  The Board determined that the documentation submitted by the Applicant does not demonstrate if in-service misconduct was an aberration.  The characterization of service received was appropriate considering the length of service and UCMJ violations.  Relief denied.

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   However, the NDRB determined the Narrative Reason for Separation should change from “Pattern of Misconduct” to “Misconduct (Serious Offense).”  The awarded characterization of service, however, shall  .  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 for additional information.

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 11, effective 26 April 2005 until 19 May 2008, Article 1910-140, SEPARATION BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT - PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT.

B.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 11, effective 26 April 2005 until 11 June 2008, Article 1910-142, SEPARATION BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT - COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE.

C.  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 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 Disabled American 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 their opportunities before the NDRB, the Applicant may petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR), 701 South Courthouse Road, Suite 1001, Arlington, VA 22204-2490 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.

Post-Service Conduct:  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 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  in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member’s overall character.

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