Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1301906
Original file (ND1301906.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-AR, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20130919
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:         US N R (DEP)        19980818 - 19981001     Active:  
         USNR (DEP)        19981130 - 19990103

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 19990104     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20020411      Highest Rank/Rate: AA
Length of Service: Y ear( s ) M onth( s ) 08 D a y ( s )
 Education Level:        AFQT: 32
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: 2.5 ( 2 )      Behavior: 2.0 ( 2 )        OTA: 2.58

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      CGMUC

Periods of UA /C ONF : UA: 20001113-20020219, 464 days / CONF:

NJP :
- 20000830 :      Article (Absence without leave , 20000625-20000722, 28 days)
         Article (Failure to obey order or regulation)
         Awarded: Suspended:

S CM :    SPCM:    C C :      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:                  Oth er Documentation:    
                  Additional Statements :
         From Applicant:            From /To Representation:            From /To Congress m ember :        

Pertinent Regulation/Law
A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 29, effective 11 July 2000 until 21 August 2002, Article 1910-106, SEPARATION IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT-MARTIAL.

B. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part IV, Para 403m(7)(b), Presumption Concerning Court-Martial Specifications .

 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 .


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

Applicant’s Issues

 1.        The Applicant seeks to reenlist.
2.       The Applicant contends his JAG officer lied to him and said that he would be able to reenlist after two years.
3.       The Applicant contends he was kidnapped , and his command did nothing to help him .
 4.       The Applicant contends his post-service conduct warrants consideration for an upgrade.
5 .       The Applicant contends Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder ( PTSD ) mitigates his misconduct.
Decision

Date : 20140501             Location: Washington D.C .        R epresentation :

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

Discussion

 As a result of the Applicant’s claim of PTSD, in accordance with U.S. Code, Title X, Section 1553 (d)(1), the Naval Discharge Review Board included a member who is a physician, clinical psychologist, or psychiatrist. In accordance with section 1553 (d)(2), the service secretary expedited a final decision and accorded the case sufficient priority to achieve an expedited resolution. The Applicant’s service record documents completion of a Western Pacific deployment from June to December 1999.

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 discharg e if such change is warranted. In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of g overnment al 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 o f the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 86 (Absence without leave , 20000625-20000722, 28 days) and Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation) . In addition, the Applicant had charges referred to a S pecial C ourt- M artial for violating Article 86 (Absence without leave , 20001113 until apprehended on 200202 19, 464 days ). On 14 March 2002 , the Applicant submitted his request for separation in lieu of trial by court-martial (SILT). In the request for discharge, the Applicant noted that his counsel had fully explained the elements of the offenses for which he was charged and that he was guilty of those offenses. He certified a complete understanding of the negative consequences of his actions and that characterization of service could be Under Other Than Honorable Conditions, which might deprive him of virtually all veterans benefits based upon his current enlistment. The Navy leniently accepted his request and discharged him Under Other Than Honorable Conditions for Separation In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial.

: (Nondecisional) The Applicant seeks to reenlist. 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 B oard for Correction of Naval Records 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.
: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends his JAG officer lied to him and said that he would be able to reenlist after two years. The record contained no evidence of any wrongdoing by the Applicant’s JAG officer or anyone else in the discharge process. RE codes can be waived by Navy Recruiting Command if service needs dictate that personnel who were formerly discharged for misconduct are allowed to reenter service. The NDRB discerned no impropriety in the Applicant’s discharge. Relief denied.





: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends he was kidnapped, and his command did nothing to help him. After the Applicant was apprehended following 464 days of being in an unauthorized absence status, the Navy referred charges to a Special Court-Martial. Facing the possibility of a punitive discharge (i.e., Bad Conduct), the Applicant, after consulting with a qualified counsel, requested to be separated in lieu of trial by Special Court-Martial. Per regulations, to attain approval for a SILT request, servicemembers must have been afforded the opportunity to consult with a qualified counsel and submit a written statement. They must also fully understand the elements of the offense(s) for which they were charged, and they must admit their guilt. They further certify a complete understanding of the negative consequences of their actions and that characterization of service could be Under Other Than Honorable Conditions, which might deprive them of virtually all veterans benefits based upon their current enlistment. If the Applicant felt he was mistakenly charged with a crime or could not come back due to being kidnapped , it was his obligation to contest those charges at the time they were made. During a trial, he would have had the opportunity to mount a defense against the charges. The evidence submitted by the Applicant does not show that he was not responsible for his actions or that his stated inability to return mitigates all or a portion of his period of unauthorized absence. The Applicant’s command expressed their willingness on several occasions to pay for the Applicant’s return if he revealed his location to his mother. The Applicant submitted no evidence to support his contention that he was kidnapped or was otherwise unable to report for duty. The NDRB determined the Applicant’s command acted properly, and his discharge proceedings were proper and equitable. Relief denied.
Issue 4: (Decisional) (Equity) RELIEF NOT WARRANTED. The Applicant contends his post-service conduct warrants consideration for an upgrade. The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the re-characterization of a discharge. However, there is no law, or regulation, that provides that an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Normally, to permit relief, a procedural impropriety or inequity must have been found to exist during the period of enlistment in question. Besides statements from the Applicant and his mother, he failed to provide any documentary evidence on his behalf for post-service consideration. The Applicant could have provided documentation as detailed in the Post-Service Conduct paragraph in the Addendum with the recognition that 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. Without post-service documentary evidence, the Board determined the awarded characterization of service shall remain Under Other Than Honorable Conditions. Relief denied.
5 : (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends PTSD mitigates his misconduct. 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. The NDRB did not find any reference to a medical diagnosis of PTSD in the Applicant’s service record to support his claim, and the Applicant did not provide any documentary evidence of a medical diagnosis by competent medical authorities to support his claim. Though the Applicant may feel that PTSD was the underlying cause of his misconduct, the record reflects willful misconduct that demonstrated he was unfit for further service. 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. Two extended periods of unauthorized absence and failing to obey orders and regulations were conscious decisions to violate the ten ets of honorable and faithful service. T he NDRB determined PTSD did not mitigate the Applicant’s misconduct. Relief denied.

Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s s ummary of s ervice, r ecord e ntries, and d ischarge p rocess, 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 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

Similar Decisions

  • USMC | DRB | 2012_Marine | MD1201761

    Original file (MD1201761.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Types of Documents Submitted/reviewedRelated 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 NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD...

  • USMC | DRB | 2014_Marine | MD1400345

    Original file (MD1400345.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The NDRB conducted a thorough review of the Applicant’s service record, his statement and submitted documents, and the documentation associated with his separation proceedings and determined he received full due process and all applicable rights. 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1101741

    Original file (MD1101741.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT Applicant’s Issues 1. ” 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. Additionally, the NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0800258

    Original file (ND0800258.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Types of Documents SubmittedRelated to Military Service: DD 214: Service and/or 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 Member of Congress: Other Documentation (Describe) DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW...

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0902295

    Original file (MD0902295.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. The NDRB determined the Applicant was properly diagnosed with personality disorder, and the separation code was appropriate.NDRB Issue: (Decisional) () . ” 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2015_Marine | MD1500225

    Original file (MD1500225.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    During this time period, the Applicant had a DUI conviction as well as being found guilty at NJP. 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0601223

    Original file (MD0601223.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After a thorough review of the Applicant’s record, issues submitted, and post service accomplishments, the Board determined that clemency was not warranted and that the sentence awarded the Applicant at his court-martial was appropriate for the offenses he committed. 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2007_Marine | MD0700547

    Original file (MD0700547.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Per table 6-1, para 6213 of the MARCORPSEPMAN, the characterization of service is determined by the service record of the member. Discharge Process Date Notified: 20000510 Basis for Discharge:Least Favorable Characterization: Commanding Officer’s Intended Recommendation: Date Applicant Responded to Notification:20000510Rights Elected at Notification: Consult with Counsel Obtain Copies of Documents Submit Statement(s) (date) Administrative Board Commanding Officer Recommendation...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0800837

    Original file (MD0800837.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall MISCONDUCT.Discussion : either which the Board cannot form the basis of relief for the Applicant, or the Board does not have the authority to grant the relief for which the Applicant petitioned. The NDRB reviewed all of the available records, supporting documents, facts, elements of discharge, evidence submitted by the Applicant, and circumstances unique to this case. ” Additional Reviews : Subsequent to a document review, former members are eligible...

  • USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1101383

    Original file (MD1101383.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT Applicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant contendshe was biased against and received unfair judgment.2. 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 .The Applicant remains...