Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2014_Navy | ND1400458
Original file (ND1400458.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-SA, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20140106
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:                           Active:  

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20000508     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20011129      Highest Rank/Rate: SA
Length of Service:
         Inactive:        Y ear( s ) M onth( s ) 23 D a y ( s )
         Active   Y ear( s ) M onth( s ) 29 D a y ( s )
 Education Level:        AFQT: 46
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: 1.0 ( 1 )      Behavior: 1.0 ( 1 )        OTA: 1.50

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      NONE

Periods of C ONF :

NJP :

- 20010503 :      Article (Absence without leave , 5 specifications )
         Article ( Insubordinate conduct toward warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer , 3 specifications )
         Awarded: Suspended: 30 DAYS Suspension vacated (date NFIR)

- 20010604 :      Article (Absence without leave)
         Awarded: Suspended: [Extracted from Commanding Officer’s letter dated 20011004]

- 20010706 :      Details N ot Found in Record [Date extracted from NAVPERS 1070/604, Awards.]

S CM :    SPCM:    C C :

Retention Warning Counseling :

- 20010706 :       For unauthorized absence and willful disobedience of a lawful order from a noncommissioned officer.

- 200109 18 :       For provoking speech.







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 contends harassment led to his misconduct.
2.       The Applicant contends Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder ( PTSD ) , insomnia, stress, major depression , and anger mitigate his misconduct.
3 .        The Applicant contends post-service conduct warrants an upgrade.
Decision

Date : 20140710             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 he deployed in support of a contingency operation and was, as a consequence of that deployment, diagnosed with either PTSD or T raumatic Brain Injury . A review of his record revealed that he did not deploy in support of a contingency operation, and so his case did not warrant an expedited review in accordance with U.S. Cod e, Title X, Section 1553(d)(1). T he Naval Discharge Review Board , however, included a Navy psychiatrist as a result of the Applicant’s claim of pre-service PTSD.
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 NAVPERS 1070/613 (Page 13) warnings and for o f the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 86 (Absence without leave , 6 specifications ) and Article 91 (Insubordinate conduct toward warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer , 3 specifications ). On 25 October 2001 , facing a punitive Bad Conduct Discharge at a Special Court-Martial, the Applicant submitted his request for separation in lieu of trial by court-martial. 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 accepted his request and discharged him Under Other Than Honorable Conditions.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends harassment led to 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. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the Applicant produced any evidence, to support the contention the com mand treated him unfairly. Therefore, the NDRB determined the Applicant’s contention to be without merit. Relief denied.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends PTSD, insomnia, stress, major depression, and anger mitigate his misconduct. The Applicant contends he suffers from PTSD, insomnia, and depression due to his pre-service employment at a gas station. The Applicant did not provide any evidence of a PTSD diagnosis , however, he provided medical records that indicate he is currently being medicated for insomnia and depression. Though the Applicant may feel that PTSD, insomnia, stress, major depression , and anger were the underlying cause s 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. After an exhaustive review, the NDRB determined his stated medical conditions to include PTSD d id not mitigate his misconduct , and his discharge was proper and equitable . Relief denied.


: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends post-service conduct warrants an upgrade. The NDRB considers 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. The Applicant provided a personal statement, college transcripts , and medical records . The Applicant could have provided documentation as detailed in the Post-Service Conduct paragraph in the Addendum , however, 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. The Board determined t he characterization of service received was appropriate considering the length of service and UCMJ violations. 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 | 2009_Marine | MD0900667

    Original file (MD0900667.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant’s widow is requesting an upgrade to her husband’s characterization to Honorable because her husband was murdered before he could finish his efforts to correct his military record. An upgrade to Honorable, as requested, was not considered appropriate given the extent of the member’s disciplinary history.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, medical and record entries, and discharge process, the Board found the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2015_Navy | ND1500307

    Original file (ND1500307.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall .Discussion As a result of the Applicant’s claim of PTSD due to military sexual trauma and in-service diagnosis of a personality disorder, 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. ” Additional Reviews : After...

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0901203

    Original file (MD0901203.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    : (Nondecisional)The Applicant claims his current medical problems are related to his service in the Marine Corps and requests an upgrade of the characterization of his service so he can receive medical treatment from the Department of Veterans Affairs. After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, medical and service record entries, court-martial proceedings, discharge process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700463

    Original file (ND0700463.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board determined that the documentation provided by the Applicant did not mitigate the misconduct that resulted in the characterization of discharge.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. After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Medical and Service Record...

  • USMC | DRB | 2012_Marine | MD1200604

    Original file (MD1200604.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 11 August 2010, the Separation Authority, after careful review of the facts and circumstances surrounding the Applicant’s misconduct and overall record of service, directed that the Applicant be separated from the Marine Corps with an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge due to Misconduct (Drug Abuse). Relief denied.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entries and the administrative separation...

  • USMC | DRB | 2014_Marine | MD1400869

    Original file (MD1400869.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After a complete review of the service and medical records, the NDRB determined the Applicant was responsible for his misconduct and is not mitigated by his depression, an Under Honorable Conditions (General) discharge was warranted and very lenient, and an upgrade would be inappropriate. ” 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2007_Marine | MD0700717

    Original file (MD0700717.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant contends that her DD-214 states the Narrative Reason for Separation was Personality Disorder though the Applicant was diagnosed withPost Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and other mental disorders. Medical/Service Record Entries Related to Characterization of Service or Basis for Discharge 20030718: NJP -- Viol UCMJ Art. Marine suffers from a personality disorder that is so severe that the Marine’s ability to function effectively in the military is significantly impaired.

  • USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1000709

    Original file (MD1000709.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 | 2009_Marine | MD0901751

    Original file (MD0901751.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After a careful review of the Applicant’s case under the pertinent standards of equity to determine if any factors in this particular case merited clemency, the NDRB determined the Applicant’s PTSD, depression and anxiety were not mitigating factors in his misconduct especially relating to themultiple methamphetamine distribution charges, and that the reason for discharge, convicted by special court-martial, was appropriate. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted,...

  • USMC | DRB | 2007_Marine | MD0700629

    Original file (MD0700629.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Date:20071120Location:Washington D.C.Representation: Discussion Issue1: 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. After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Medical and Service Record Entries, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found that Summary of ServicePrior Service:...