Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2014_Navy | ND1401124
Original file (ND1401124.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-GM2, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20140521
Characterization of Service Received:
Narrative Reason for Discharge: MISCONDUCT (SERIOUS OFFENSE)
Authority for Discharge: MILPERSMAN

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

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
 Inactive:         US N R (DEP)        19991023 - 19991103     Active:   19991104 –20031209 HON
                                    USN 20031210 –20090714 HON      
Period of Service Under Review:
 Date of Current Enlistment: 20090715     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20120814      Highest Rank/Rate: GM1
Length of Service: Year(s) Month(s) 29 D ay(s)
 Education Level:        AFQT: 33
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: 3.7 ( 4 )      Behavior: 3.0 ( 4 )        OTA: 3.53

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      Rifle Pistol NMCAM (3) GCM (3) NMCOSR (3) (2)

Periods of UA /C ONF :

NJP :

- 20120531 :      Article (False official statement) 7 specifications
         Awarded: Suspended:

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:

          “CONTINUOUS HONORABLE ACTIVE SERVICE FROM 991104 UNTIL 090714 ”
         
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:                  Other Documentation:    
                  Additional Statements:
         From Applicant:           From/To Representation:           From/To Congress member:        

Pertinent Regulation/Law

 A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 36, effective 18 August 2011 until Present, Article 1910-142, SEPARATION BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT - COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE.
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 .

C. The Manual for Courts-Martial authorizes the award of a punitive discharge if adjudged as part of the sentence upon conviction by a special or general court-martial for violation of the UCMJ, Article 107 .



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

Applicant’s Issues

 1.       The Applicant contends his PTSD was not properly taken into consideration as a contributing factor.
2.       The Applicant contends the alleged false statement was made in a counseling group and should not have been used as a basis for eligibility for a Purple Heart.
3.       The Applicant contends his post-service conduct warrants an upgrade to Honorable.
Decision

Date: 20141001             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 affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the Applicant. As a result of the Applicant’s claim of PTSD or TBI, 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 stated that he was diagnosed with PTSD related to his combat service in Iraq. The Applicant’s service record documents completion of a deployment to Iraq from April to November 2008, conducting combat service support operations in support of Operation IRAQI FREEDOM. The Applicant’s record of service included NAVPERS 1070/613 (Page 13) warnings, for o f the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 107 (False official statement, 7 specifications). Based on the offense s committed by the Applicant, command administratively processed for separation. The NDRB did not have the Applicant’s complete administrative separation package ; however, the record shows the Applicant had counsel during his administrative board. The administrative board voted three to zero that the preponderance of the evidence supported the Applicant had Misconduct (Serious Offense) and recommended the Applicant be separated from the Naval Service. In addition, the administrative board voted two to one to recommend a General (Under Honorable Conditions) characterization.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends his PTSD was not properly taken into consideration as a contributing factor. The Applicant references the Commander, Naval Medical Center, San Diego Administrative Separation letter dated 12 October 2012. Th is letter annotates “N/A” if the Applicant was screened for PTSD/TBI as a contributing factor, was PTSD/TBI determined to be a contributing factor, and psychiatric, medical, and/or PTSD evaluation. However, the Commanding Officer comm en ts clearly state the Applicant was receiving care for PTSD and TBI. This letter also enclose s the administrative board record of proceedings which show the administrative board took into consideration the Applicant’s mental health. In addition, the record clearly shows that the Applicant’s counsel called the Applicant’s psychologist to testify on his behalf. After an exhaustive review, the NDRB determined that the Applicant’s PTSD was properly taken into consideration by the Applicant’s administrative board and Separating Authority; and that the Applicant was not materially adversely affected by the annotation of “N/A ” as the Applicant contends. Therefore, the NDRB determined that any further mitigation based on his PTSD would be inappropriate. Relief denied.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends the alleged false statement was made in a counseling group and should not have been used as a basis for eligibility for a Purple Heart. The NDRB presumes regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the Applicant. The record shows th at on 01 December 2011, th e Applicant contacted Navy Safe Harbor inquiring into his eligibility for the Purple Heart because of injuries he sustained during an IED attack . On 08 March 2012, Navy Safe Harbor completed a command investigation and it was determined that the Applicant was not involved in an IED attack. The Applicant admitted that he had lied about having a TBI and was found guilty at NJP to violating the UCMJ: Article 107 (False official statement, 7 specifications). The NDRB found no impropriety and determined that the Applicant was properly discharged for his misconduct. Relief denied.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends his post-service conduct warrants an upgrade to Honorable. 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 three 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. To warrant an upgrade, the Applicant’s post-service efforts need to be more encompassing. The Board determined that 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.



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 | 2014_Navy | ND1400031

    Original file (ND1400031.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are...

  • USMC | DRB | 2015_Marine | MD1501074

    Original file (MD1501074.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’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 does not have the authority to change a narrative reason for separation to one indicating a medical disability or other...

  • USMC | DRB | 2015_Marine | MD1500690

    Original file (MD1500690.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2015_Marine | MD1401488

    Original file (MD1401488.rtf) Auto-classification: 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 remain GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS) and the narrative reason for separation shall remain MISCONDUCT. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application is received...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2015_Navy | ND1500403

    Original file (ND1500403.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2013_Marine | MD1300419

    Original file (MD1300419.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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1301576

    Original file (ND1301576.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. However, the separation codeHKK on the Applicant’s DD Form 214 indicates he waived his right to an administrative board.Issue 1: (Decisional) (Propriety/Equity) RELIEF NOT WARRANTED. ” 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2013_Marine | MD1301231

    Original file (MD1301231.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    of controlled substances)Awarded: Suspended: SCM:SPCM:CC: Retention Warning Counseling: 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2012_Marine | MD1201467

    Original file (MD1201467.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The administrative board voted 3-0 that the preponderance of the evidence supported that the Applicant had conducted Misconduct (Drug Abuse) and recommended the Applicant be separated with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) characterization. The Applicant contends his command and Separation Authority failed to properly consider MARADMIN 328/10and discharged him for misconduct rather than for a physical disability. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted,...

  • USMC | DRB | 2014_Marine | MD1401053

    Original file (MD1401053.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant contends he did not receive treatment for PTSD while in service, thereby providing mitigation for his 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...