ex-MMFN, USN

                  Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20090311
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) 19970501 - 19970513   Active:       19970514 -
19990601  HON

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment:  19990602     Age at Enlistment:
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Extension
Date of Discharge:  20010217 Highest Rank/Rate:  MM2
Length of Service:   Year(s)     Month(s)   15 Day(s)
Education Level:       AFQT:  93
Evaluation Marks:      Performance:  NFIR    Behavior:  NFIR  OTA:  NFIR

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):     CGUC

Period of UA:  20000303-20000308 (5 DAYS)

NJP:
    - 19991118:  Article 86 (Absent from unit 0700, 19990913 until 0600,
             19991006 (23 DAYS))
      Article 86 (UA from 0700, 19991018 until 19991025 (7 DAYS))
      Article 87 (Miss ship’s movement 19990913)
      Awarded:      Suspended:

    - 20000412:  Article 86 (UA)
      Awarded:      Suspended:


    - 20001003:  Article 86 (UA 20000809 until 20000817 (8 DAYS))
      Awarded:      Suspended:


    - 20001110:  Article 86 (Failed to go to appointed place of duty,
             restricted men’s muster)
      Awarded: 3 DAYS B&W  Suspended:

SCM:

SPCM:

CC:


Retention Warning Counseling:

    - 19991123:  For Commanding Officer’s NJP for violation of UCMJ,
             Article 86, 2 specifications, (Unauthorized absence) and
             Article 87 (Missing movement)


            Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

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

        “CONTINUOUS HONORABLE ACTIVE SERVICE FROM 19970514 UNTIL 19990601”

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), Change 31, dated 20
Feb 01, effective 25 January 2001 until 21 August 2002, 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 87 (Missing
ship’s movement).




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

                             Applicant’s Issues

1. Applicant claims his discharge was based on an isolated incident.
2. Applicant claims his DD 214 incorrectly cites “misconduct” vice
“medical” as narrative reason for discharge.

                                  Decision

Date:  20090827        Location:  Washington D.C.  Representation:

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

                                 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 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 reflects  NAVPERS 1070/613 (Page 13) warnings
and   for  of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 86 (UA,
appointed place of duty for 23 days, 7 days, 5 days, and 8 days), and
Article 87 (missing ship’s movement).  Based on the offense(s) committed by
the Applicant,  command administratively processed  for separation.  When
processed for administrative separation, the Applicant waived  rights to
consult with qualified counsel, and submit a written statement.

:  (Decisional) ()  .  The Applicant contends that his discharge was base
on an isolated incident.  For the Applicant’s edification, service members
may be separated based on commission of a serious military or civilian
offense when specific circumstances of the offense warrant separation and
the offense would warrant a punitive discharge per Manual for Courts-
Martial.   Likewise, service members may be separated for a pattern of
misconduct due to frequent violations of UCMJ articles.  Per the February
6, 2001 letter from the Commanding Officer of the USS Abraham Lincoln, the
Applicant was administratively separated for 1) a pattern of misconduct and
2) misconduct; commission of a serious offense.

Issue 2:  (Decisional) ()  .  The Applicant contends his DD 214 should read
“medical” vice “misconduct.”  As noted in prior correspondence to the
Applicant from the NDRB, he bears the burden of overcoming the presumption
of regularity through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence
to support his issue.  There is no evidence in the record, nor has the
Applicant provided any evidence to support the contention that his
discharge should have read “medical” vice “misconduct.”  The Applicant’s
statements alone do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity
in this case.

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 the discharge to be proper and equitable.  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, Automatic Upgrades, and Post-Service Conduct.]

                  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 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.  There are veteran's organizations, such as the American
Legion and the Association of Service Disable Veterans, 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 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.

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
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 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.

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