Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2014_Navy | ND1400778
Original file (ND1400778.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-MMFA, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20140320
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)        20060509 - 20060612     Active:  

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20060613     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20071029      Highest Rank/Rate: MMF A
Length of Service: Y ear( s ) M onth( s ) 17 D a y ( s )
 Education Level:        AFQT: 46
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: 3.0 ( 1 )      Behavior: 1.0 ( 1 )        OTA: 2.43

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):     

Period of C ONF :

NJP :
- 20070310 :      Article (Absence without leave)
         Article (Assault)
         Awarded: Suspended:

- 20070928 :      Article (Failure to obey order or regulation)
         Awarded: Suspended:

S CM :    SPCM:    C C :

Retention Warning Counseling :

- 20060707 :       For numerous negative entries on your Recruit Personnel Data Record (Hard Card) to include: failure to adapt and conform to Navy standards, communicating a threat toward fellow recruits on numerous occasions, continuous anger management issues, failure to follow instructions, failure to obey the rules and regulations at Recruit Training Command, sub-standard performance, and overall lack of military bearing.

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:                  Other Documentation:    
                  Additional Statements:
          From Applicant:           From/To Representation:           From/To Congress member:        


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

Applicant’s Issues

 1.       The Applicant contends P ost- T raumatic S tress D isorder (PTSD ) mitigates her misconduct.
2. The Applicant contends her post-service conduct is worthy of consideration for an upgrade .
Decision

Date: 20 1 4 0904             Location: Washington D.C .        R epresentation : VSO

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. 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 eith er PTSD or T raumatic Brain Injury . A review of her record revealed that she did not deploy 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, due to the claim of PTSD, the NDRB did include a Navy psychiatrist.

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 affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the Applicant. T he Board did complete a thorough review of the circumstances that led to discharge and the discharge process to ensure discharge met the pertinent standards of equity and propriety. The Applicant’s record of service included NAVP ERS 1070/613 (Page 13) warning and for o f the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 86 ( Absence without leave , 1 specification ), Article 92 ( Failure to obey order or regulation , 1 specification ), and Article 128 ( Assault , 1 specification ) . 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 PTSD mitigates her misconduct. A review of the Applicant’s service record shows that she received a retention warning during recruit training for failure to adapt and conform to Navy standards, communicating a threat toward fellow recruits on numerous occasions, continuous anger management issues, failure to follow instructions, failure to obey the rules and regulations at Recruit Training Command, sub-standard performance, and overall lack of military bearing. After recruit training and Machinist’s Mate apprentice-level training, she reported to her ship in December 2006. In March 2007, she was found guilty at NJP of violating UCMJ Articles 86 (Absence without leave) and 128 (Assault). In September 2007, she was found guilty at a second NJP of violating UCMJ Article 92 (Failure to obey an order or regulation) and was processed for administrative separation. With a retention warning and two NJPs, she met the requirements to be administratively separated for Misconduct (Pattern of Misconduct) and Misconduct (Serious Offense), which typically results in an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions characterization of service. Her command, however, leniently recommended she receive a General characterization.

 T he Applicant contends she suffers from PTSD due to Military Sexual Trauma, though she is not specific as to when that occurred on her ship. 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 her issue. The NDRB requested the Applicant’s medical treatment records, but the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) was unable to locate them. T he Applicant provided her VA disability rating decision but no details on the medical examination that led to that rating . T hough the Applicant may feel that PTSD from Military Sexual Trauma was the underlying cause of her misconduct, the record reflects willful misconduct that demonstrated she w as unfit for further service. T he evidence of record did not show that the Applicant was either not responsible for her conduct or that s he should not be held accountable for her actions. T he NDRB determined PTSD did not mitigate her misconduct , and her discharge was proper and equitable . Relief denied.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends her post-service conduct is worthy of consideration for 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 and five character references. 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 the documentation submitted by the Applicant does not demonstrate if in-service misconduct was an aberration. The 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.

Pertinent Regulation/Law

 A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 11, effective 26 April 2005 until 19 May 2008, 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 .


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

  • NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1301236

    Original file (ND1301236.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. 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 is not eligible for further reviews from the NDRB. ” Additional Reviews :...

  • 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,...

  • 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 | ND1400279

    Original file (ND1400279.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant implied in 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, based 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2014_Marine | MD1400149

    Original file (MD1400149.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    There is no evidence in the Applicant’s record, nor did he provide evidence to the NDRB, that the Applicant sought medical or psychiatric help for PTSD symptoms in the years between his Iraq deployment in 2003 and his misconduct on 1 March 2012. 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 | 2013_Marine | MD1300790

    Original file (MD1300790.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal...

  • USMC | DRB | 2013_Marine | MD1301473

    Original file (MD1301473.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    His record clearly supports the pattern of misconduct narrative reason for discharge and the Under Other Than Honorable Conditions characterization of service. 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2013_Marine | MD1301511

    Original file (MD1301511.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Relief denied.Issue 3: (Decisional) (Equity) RELIEF NOT WARRANTED. 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. ” Additional...

  • USMC | DRB | 2013_Marine | MD1300408

    Original file (MD1300408.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In August 2011, competent medical authority diagnosed the Applicant with sleepwalking disorder, and his command administratively processed him for separation due to Condition, Not a Disability. ” 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1201188

    Original file (ND1201188.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...