Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2014_Navy | ND1400279
Original file (ND1400279.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-CSSN, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20131213
Characterization of Service Received:
Narrative Reason for Discharge:
Authority for Discharge: MILPERSMAN

Applicant’s Request:      Characterization change to:      
         Narrative Reason change to:       PTSD/MEDICAL

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive:         US N R (DEP)        20090317 - 20100215     Active:  

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20100216     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20130502      Highest Rank/Rate: CS3
Length of Service: Y ear( s ) M onth( s ) 17 D a y ( s )
 Education Level:        AFQT: 94
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: 3.4 ( 5 )      Behavior: 3.0 ( 5 )        OTA: 3.26

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      Pistol

Periods of C ONF :

NJP :

- 20121017 :      Article (Absence without leave)
         Article 112 (Drunk on duty)
         Awarded: Suspended: [Extracted from Evaluation Report and Counseling Record dated 20121130]

- 20130411 :      Article (Absence without leave)
         Article (Insubordinate conduct toward warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer)
         Article (Failure to obey order or regulation)
          Awarded : Susp ended:

S CM :    SPCM:    C C :      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 1910-140 ”

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:                  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 10 November 2009 until Present, Article 1910-140, SEPARATION BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT - PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT.

 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 she was treated unjustly and was not given proper counseling or treatment after she reported her sexual assault.
2.       The Applicant contends P ost-Traumatic Stress Disorder (P TSD ) from a sexual assault mitigates her misconduct.

Decision

Date : 20 1 4 0605             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 reviewed the Applicant ’ s record to see if she deployed in support of a contingency operation and was, as a consequence of that deployment, diagnosed with either PTSD or T raumatic Brain Injury . The Applicant implied i n her DD Form 293 statement that her PTSD was not a result of a deployment in support of a contingency operation, and so her case did not warrant an expedited review in accordance with U.S. Code, Title X, Section 1553(d)(1). However, b ased on the Applicant ’ s claim of PTSD due to a sexual assault , the Naval Discharge Review Board included a psychiatrist on the board.

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 , 2 specifications ) , Article 91 (Insubordinate conduct toward warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer), Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation), and Article 112 (Drunk on duty). 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 she was treated unjustly and was not given proper counseling or treatment after she reported her sexual assault. The record contained no evidence of any wrongdoing by the Applicant’s command . The documents provided by the Applicant show that she was receiving medical treatment and by her own statements she described that she was found “fit for duty” and she was u s ing the chaplain’s services. The NDRB presumes regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs in the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary. The NDRB discerned no unjust treatment and further determined she was receiving appropriate counseling after her report of sexual assault. Relief denied.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends PTSD from a sexual assault mitigates her misconduct. The Applicant provided a post-service letter from Life Skills Counseling, San Diego, CA dated 11 October 2013 stating that she is being seen for treatment of PTSD , and she provided portions of her medical record that reflect mental health counseling after her sexual assault by her step-brother. The Applicant’s first NJP occurred approximately 18 months after her sexual assault, and her second NJP occurred almost two years after the assault. During this time, she was receiving mental health counseling and medications to treat depression and anxiety. After an exhaustive review of the records, the NDRB determined PTSD from her sexual assault did affect her behavior and did mitigate her misconduct, but the NDRB further determined that her command provided mitigation with their assignment of a characterization of service Under Honorable Conditions (General). The Applicant’s pattern of misconduct would typically have resulted in an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge. While the NDRB determined PTSD mitigated her misconduct, the evidence of record did not show that the Applicant was either not responsible for h er c onduct or that s he should not be held accountable for h er actions. The Applicant bears some responsibility for her misconduct, and the NDRB determined further mitigation is not warranted. 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 | 2014_Marine | MD1400117

    Original file (MD1400117.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Furthermore, the letter states the Applicant is receiving treatment as a result of her sexual assault while in the Marine Corps. However, the Applicant bears some responsibility for missing required drills and not communicating with her command, and so a further upgrade to Honorable is not warranted.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 was proper but not...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1301527

    Original file (ND1301527.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After taking her sexual assault and deployment into consideration, the Separation Authority determined she warranted separation for Misconduct (Serious Offense) with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) characterization of service. 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2014_Marine | MD1400335

    Original file (MD1400335.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After a careful review of the Applicant’s service and medical records, a summary of the NCIS investigation of the September 2008 alleged sexual assault, and the documentation and statements provided by the Applicant’s father, the NDRB determined the Applicant was provided with extensive alcohol rehabilitation treatment, counseling services, and psychiatric treatment and was provided multiple opportunities to correct her behavior and receive assistance for her alcohol dependence, depression,...

  • USMC | DRB | 2012_Marine | MD1200470

    Original file (MD1200470.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/ToCongress member: DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD...

  • USMC | DRB | 2012_Marine | MD1201010

    Original file (MD1201010.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After a complete review of the Applicant’s service records and her statement, the NDRB noted that she was diagnosed while in service with non-combat-related PTSD, chronic mental illness, and major depression. ” 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1301026

    Original file (ND1301026.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ” 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. Additionally, the NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1301359

    Original file (ND1301359.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After a complete review of the records and the documentation submitted by the Applicant, the NDRB determined PTSD did not mitigate her prescription drug abuse, and her discharge was warranted, proper, and equitable. ” 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2014_Navy | ND1401303

    Original file (ND1401303.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2014_Navy | ND1400026

    Original file (ND1400026.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Relief denied.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entriesand 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. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2014_Navy | ND1400778

    Original file (ND1400778.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...