Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2012_Marine | MD1200928
Original file (MD1200928.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-, USMC
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20120316
Characterization of Service Received:
Narrative Reason for Discharge:
Authority for Discharge: MARCORSEPMAN

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

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive:         USMCR (DEP)       20040729 - 20040926     Active:   USMC     20040927 - 200 71129 HON

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20071130     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Months
Date of Discharge: 20100305      H ighest Rank:
Length of Service : Y ea r ( s ) M on th ( s ) 06 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 51
MOS: 3381
Proficiency/Conduct M arks (# of occasions): ( ) / ( )    Fitness R eports:

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      Rifle (5) (2) AAM MM COA LOA

Periods of CONF :

NJP:

- 20090827 :      Article (Absence without leave - UA from duty on 20090728 )
         Article (Failure to obey order or regulation , 3 specifications )
         Specification 1: Wrongfully having female guest sleep over in his room on 20080728
         Specification 2: Wrongfully reported to work unshaven on 20090728
         Specification 3: Wrongfully not report to work in neat uniform 20090728
         Awarded: Suspended:

- 20100128 :      Article (Absence without leave , 4 specifications )
         Specification 1: Fail to report to duty on 20091231
         Specification 2: Fail to report to duty on 20100106
         Specification 3: Fail to report to duty on 20100121
         Specification 4: Fail to report to duty on 20100122
         Article (False official s tatements )
         Awarded: Suspended:

SCM:     SPCM:    CC:

Retention Warning Counseling :

- 2009 0 827 :       For NJP on 20090827




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:                  Oth er Documentation:    
                  Additional Statements :
         From Applicant:            From /To Representation:            From /To Congress m ember :        

Pertinent Regulation/Law

 A. Paragraph 6210, MISCONDUCT , of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16F), effective 1 September 2001 until Present.

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.       The Applicant contends he suffered from sleep apnea with snoring and sleepiness.
2.       The Applicant contends two Master Sergeants knew his father and held a grudge against him.

Decision

 Date : 20 1 3 0206            Location: Washington D.C .         R epresentation :

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 g overnment al a ffairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the Applicant. The Board did complete a thorough review of the circumstances that led to discharge and the discharge process to ensure discharge met the pertinent sta ndards of equity and propriety. The Applicant’s record of service included 6105 counseling warning and for o f the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 86 ( Absence without leave, 5 specifications ), Article 92 ( Failure to obey order or regulation , 3 specific ation s), and Article 107 ( False official statements ) . Based on the offenses committed by the Applicant, command administratively processed for separation . When notified of a dministrative separation processing using the procedure, the Applicant elected rights to consult with a qualified counsel but waived his rights to submit a written statement and request an administrative board .

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends he suffered from sleep apnea with snoring and sleepiness. The Applicant submitted the results of two sleep studies that diagnosed the Applicant with significant obstructive sleep apnea. When reviewing a discharge, the NDRB does consider the extent to which a medical problem might affect an Applicant’s performance and ability to conform to the military’s standards of conduct and discipline. However, the NDRB generally does not consider the circumstances surrounding the Applicant’s stated condition or diagnosis to be of sufficient nature to excuse the Applicant’s misconduct. After a complete review of the records, the NDRB determined his sleep apnea did not mitigate or excuse his misconduct. The sleep studies do not prove that he was not responsible for his actions or should not be held accountable for his misconduct. Relief denied.
Issue 2: (Decisional) (Propriety/Equity) RELIEF NOT WARRANTED. The Applicant contends two Master Sergeants knew his father and held a grudge against him. The Applicant’s father submitted a letter detailing the targeted unfair treatment against his son. 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 sup port the contention that the two Master Sergeants held a grudge against his father and targeted him unfairly, which led to his administrative separation. The Applicant’s statements , or those of his father, alone do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity in this case. The Applicant had repetitive misconduct, which included being UA from duty, failing to report to duty, having a female guest in his room overnight in violation of orders, and making false official statements. The repetitive misconduct warranted separation Under Other Than Honorable Conditions for a Pattern of Misconduct . 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.


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 Disable d 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

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090009344

    Original file (20090009344.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant was rated under the Department of Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) and was granted a 0 percent disability rating for code 6847 (for the condition of obstructive sleep apnea shown on his NARSUM). On 17 March 2005, the applicant was honorably discharged in accordance with paragraph 4-24b(3) of Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation) by reason of physical disability with entitlement to severance pay. The...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-01495

    Original file (PD-2014-01495.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    SEPARATION DATE: 20091228 The Board’s assessment of the PEB rating determinations is confined to review of medical records and all available evidence for application of the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) standards to the unfitting medical condition at the time of separation. The Board gives consideration to VA evidence, particularly within 12 months of separation, but only to the extent that it reasonably reflects the severity of the disability at the time of...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060011003

    Original file (20060011003.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests that the findings of her Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) and Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) be amended to include the diagnosis of Upper Airway Resistance Syndrome (UARS) (sleep apnea). There are two types of sleep apnea, central sleep apnea (CSA) (without respiratory movements) and obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) (caused by upper-airway blockage). The NHLBI website also describes continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) as an effective treatment for obstructive...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-00397

    Original file (PD-2014-00397.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The “right wrist pain” was forwarded to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) IAW AR 40-501.The Informal PEB (IPEB) adjudicated “right (dominant) wrist pain without any specific history of trauma/injury” as unfitting, rated 0%, with application of the US Army Physical Disability Agency (USAPDA) pain policy. The Board’s assessment of the PEB rating determinations is confined to review of medical records and all available evidence for application of theVeterans Affairs Schedule for Rating...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00552

    Original file (PD2009-00552.docx) Auto-classification: Approved

    The medical basis for the separation was Central Nervous System Hypersomnolence. The CI was referred to the PEB, determined unfit for continued military service, and separated at 10% disability using the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Ratings Disabilities (VASRD) and applicable Air Force and Department of Defense regulations. The initial 10% rating was based on lack of evidence of either at least two minor seizures in the last six months or a diagnosis of sleep apnea with persistent...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060008719

    Original file (20060008719.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    All conditions were rated as zero percent disabling. The applicant was rated as 0 percent disabled under VASRD code 6847 for OSA requiring CPAP; CPAP not fully utilized with no reason given for non-compliance with the recommended CPAP treatment. The applicant's knee and ankle conditions were rated under VASRD code 5099-5003, 0 percent disabling, rated analogous to degenerative joint disease, no radiographic findings, full range of motion and stability, with minimal intensity.

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01581

    Original file (PD-2013-01581.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The Board’s assessment of the PEB rating determinations is confined to review of medical records and all available evidence for application of the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) standards to the unfitting medical condition at the time of separation. The examiner noted some mild swelling and minimal tenderness below the patella with a “tendency to sublux medially” and the CI was given a soft knee brace with a patella cut–out.At the MEB examination on17 June 2004, 6...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 01450

    Original file (PD2012 01450.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    SEPARATION DATE: 20050408 The Informal PEB (IPEB) adjudicated the OSA requiring CPAP condition as unfitting, rated 0%. Under the authority of Title 10, United States Code, section 1554(a), I approve the enclosed recommendation of the Department of Defense Physical Disability Board of Review (DoD PDBR) pertaining to the individual named in the subject line above to recharacterize the individual’s separation as a permanent disability retirement with the combined disability rating of 50%...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100014079

    Original file (20100014079.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant provided a self-authored statement, sleep study, and a letter from a physician as new evidence that will be considered by the Board. This office stated that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that a PEB would have found the applicant unfit for sleep apnea in 2000 and that military disability compensation can only be provided if there was a finding of unfitness for that condition. The opinion stated the applicant: * was separated from the military with severance pay...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2015_Navy | ND1500707

    Original file (ND1500707.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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: Pertinent Regulation/Law A. Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall...