ex-PNSN, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20130717
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)	19901022 - 19910312  	Active:	  19910313 - 19950812  HON
		19990830 - 19990830  

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment:  19990831	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Extension
Date of Discharge:  20020122	Highest Rank/Rate:  PN3
Length of Service:   Year(s)     Month(s)   23 Day(s)
Education Level:  	AFQT:  49
Evaluation Marks:	Performance:  3.0 (2)	Behavior:  4.0 (2)	OTA:  3.19

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	Rifle  Pistol    (3)  (2)    

Periods of lost time per DD Form 214:  20011217 - 20020101, 15 days

NJP:  

- 20020114:	Details Not Found in Record  
	[Extracted from NAVPERS 1070/604 (Awards)] 

SCM:  	SPCM:  		CC:  	Retention Warning Counseling:  

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

The NDRB did note administrative error(s) on the original DD Form 214:
		
	  “MILPERSMAN 1910-122

The NDRB will recommend to the Commander, Navy Personnel Command, PERS-312A, 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:		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 would like to receive Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) benefits.
2.	The Applicant seeks a correction to his DD Form 214 to reflect his promotion to E-5.
3.	The Applicant contends he was an above-average Sailor who received high evaluation marks.
4.	The Applicant contends he should have received a medical discharge as his incomplete service was due to an on-the-job injury.
5.	The Applicant contends there was an incorrect input into the system, because he was awarded an Honorable discharge but his DD Form 214 says General.

Decision

Date:  20140212	    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  , the details of which were not found in his record.  Based on the Applicant’s Personality Disorder diagnosis,  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.

Issue 1:  (Nondecisional)  The Applicant would like to receive VA 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.

:  (Nondecisional)  The Applicant seeks a correction to his DD Form 214 to reflect his promotion to E-5.  In reviewing discharges, the NDRB may identify administrative errors on the Applicant’s DD Form 214 that fall within the scope of the NDRB’s responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of a discharge.  If errors are identified, the NDRB will make recommendations to the Commander, Navy Personnel Command for correction.  However, the record does not indicate that he was an E-5 at the time of his discharge.  On the contrary, the record shows the Applicant’s highest pay grade obtained was E-4.  Since the Applicant’s DD Form 214 lists his pay grade as an E-3 at the time of discharge, the NDRB presumed he was reduced in rank at his NJP on 14 January 2002.  Regardless, the NDRB could not confirm that the Applicant’s pay grade listed on his DD Form 214 is incorrect, therefore, the NDRB is unable to accommodate this request.  The Applicant may petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records, 701 South Courthouse Road, Suite 1001, Arlington, VA 22204-2490 for further review using DD Form 149.  Their website can be found at http://www.donhq.navy.mil/bcnr/bcnr.htm. 

Issue 3:  (Decisional) (Propriety/Equity)  RELIEF NOT WARRANTED.  The Applicant contends he was an above-average Sailor who received high evaluation marks.  The Applicant received an Honorable discharge for a previous enlistment from March 1991 to August 1995.  Each period of enlistment is an independent obligation and characterization is determined for that specific period of time.  During the enlistment that started in August 1999, he was diagnosed with a Personality Disorder and was processed for administrative separation.  Per Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 33, effective 14 August 2001 until 21 August 2002, Article 1910-122, Separation By Reason of Convenience of the Government - Personality Disorder(s), characterization of service should be Honorable unless a General is warranted.  During the Applicant’s 2 years and 4 months of service during this enlistment, he was found guilty at NJP.  An Honorable characterization of service is warranted when the quality of a member’s service generally meets the standard of acceptable conduct and performance for Naval personnel, or is 

otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization of service would be clearly inappropriate.  A General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge is warranted when the quality of the member’s service has been honest and faithful but significant negative aspects of the member’s conduct or performance of duty outweighed the positive aspects of the member’s service record.  After a complete review of the records in the Applicant’s second enlistment, the NDRB determined his discharge was proper and equitable.  Relief denied.

Issue 4:  (Decisional) ()  .  The Applicant contends he should have received a medical discharge as his incomplete service was due to an on-the-job injury.  Per regulations, the initiation and submission of medical boards are at the discretion of the individual physician.  There is no indication in the evidence of record or in the documentation submitted by the Applicant that the Applicant was recommended for or processed for a medical board by proper authority.  Further, the evidence of record does not indicate that proper authority erred by not initiating a medical board for the Applicant.  Therefore, the NDRB found the Applicant’s issue to be without merit.  Relief denied.

Issue 5:  (Decisional) ()  .  The Applicant contends there was an incorrect input into the system, because he was awarded an Honorable discharge but his DD Form 214 says General.  The NDRB 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.  Other than the Applicant’s statement, he provided no evidence that he should have received an Honorable characterization.  However, his DD Form 214 shows the Applicant had a significant period of lost time from 17 December 2001 to 01 January 2002 and had an NJP on 14 January 2002.  The Applicant’s record further shows that his “performance has been inconsistent” and “his performance and professionalism plummet when he allows his personal problems and differences to interfere with the Navy.”  Therefore, based on the Applicant’s record of service, the NDRB determined there is nothing in the records to show that he was awarded an Honorable discharge and further determined his service was honest and faithful but significant negative aspects of his conduct or performance of duty outweighed the positive aspects of his service record.  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   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 for additional information.

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 33, effective 14 August 2001 until 21 August 2002, Article 1910-122, Separation By Reason of Convenience of the Government - Personality Disorder(s).

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.

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