ex-AOAN, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request


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

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive:        USNR (DEP)       20100701 - 20110103     Active: 

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Current Enlistment: 20110104    Age at Enlistment:
Period of Enlistment: Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20140214     Highest Rank/Rate: AO3
Length of Service: Year(s) Month(s) 11 Day(s)
Education Level:        AFQT: 50
Evaluation Marks:        Performance: 2.5 (4)     Behavior: 2.0 (4)       OTA: 2.42

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):     Pistol (2)

Periods of UA/CONF:

NJP: 1

- 20131126:      Article (Absent without leave) 5 Specifications
         Specification 1: 20131017 – 20131018, 1 day
         Specification 2: 20131107 – 20131108, 1 day
         Specification 3: 20131110, less than one day
         Specification 4: 20131115 – 20131118, 3 days
         Specification 5: 20131120, less than one day
         Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation) Attempted to go to Canada without authority from your Chain of Command
         Article 107 (False official statements) Claimed that you did not know you could not go to Canada without the permission of your Chain of Command
         Awarded: Suspended:

SPCM: 1

- 20140212:      Article 90 (Assaulting or willfully disobeying a superior commissioned officer) Ignored and order to stop and stand fast that was given to him by CMDR, his superior commissioned officer
         Article 91 (Insubordinate conduct toward a warrant officer, non-commissioned officer, or petty officer)
         3 Specifications.
         Specification 1: When ordered to stop running from the Master at Arms by a petty officer, you failed to do the same.
         Specification 2: When told by the Master at Arms, a petty officer, to turn around and place your hands behind your back, you failed to do the same.
         Specification 3: When ordered by Master at Arms petty officer to stop running from said petty officer, you failed to do the same.
         Article 128 (Assault) 3 Specifications
         Specification 1-3: Swung your arms and fists at three individuals executing the duties of Master at Arms.
         Article 134 (General Article, Threats, communicating) 3 Specifications, and Article 134 (General Article, Restriction breaking)
         Sentence: CONF 120 Days (20131212 – 20140212, 62 days*)
         *Confinement was limited to pre-trial confinement in accordance with the pre-trial agreement.
         CA Action: Sentence is approved an ordered executed

CC:

Retention Warning Counseling: 1

- 20131126:      For NJP of 20131126
         [Extracted from CO’s letter dated 20140214, AOAN LADERIUS A. GARRETT, USN, XXX-XX-8687; RECOMMENDATION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE SEPARATION]

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

The NDRB did note administrative error(s) on the original DD Form 214:

         “UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS”
         : “20131017 – 20131018, 20131107 – 20131108,
                  20131115 – 20131118, 20131212 – 20140212.”

The NDRB will recommend to the Commander, Navy Personnel Command, 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 IV, Para 403m(7)(b), Presumption Concerning Court-Martial Specifications.

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 90, Assaulting or willfully disobeying a superior commissioned officer, Article 91, Insubordinate conduct toward warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer, Article 128, Assault, and Article 134, General Article.

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

Applicant’s Issues

1.       The Applicant contends that he was not given a fair trial because the evidence provided by him was never presented.
2.       The Applicant contends that his council and the council for the plaintiff had a personal relationship that created a conflict of interest.
3.       The Applicant contends that he was not provided appropriate medical care while in the Brig.
4.       The Applicant contends that there was an environment of racism within the Command.

Decision

Date: 20141125            Location: Washington D.C.        Representation:

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 governmental affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the Applicant. The Board completed a thorough review of the circumstances that led to the Applicant’s discharge and the discharge process to ensure discharge met the pertinent standards of equity and propriety. The Applicant’s record of service included NAVPERS 1070/613 (Page 13) warning, for of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 86 (Absent without leave, 5 specifications), Article 92 (Failure to obey and order or regulation by attempting to go to Canada without authorization), and Article 107 (False official statements); and for of the UCMJ: Article 90 (Assault or willful disobedience of a commissioned officer) Article 91 ( 3 specifications of insubordinate conduct toward a warrant officer, non-commissioned officer or petty officer), Article 128 (Assault), and Article 134 (General Article, restriction breaking). Based on the offense(s) committed by the Applicant, command administratively processed for separation. When notified of administrative separation processing using the procedure, the Applicant waived rights to consult with a qualified counsel, submit a written statement, and request an administrative board.

: (Decisional) () . The Applicant contends that he was not given a fair trial because the evidence provided by him was never presented. In reviewing discharges, the NDRB 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. The Applicant provided no additional documentation for the NDRB’s consideration or to rebut the Government’s presumption of regularity. Therefore there is no basis by which the NDRB may grant relief. Relief denied.

: (Decisional) () . The Applicant contends that his council and the council for the plaintiff had a personal relationship that created a conflict of interest. Without any proof of the alleged relationship between the defendant’s council and the prosecution, the NDRB must assume regularity in the conduct of Government affairs. In other words, the NDRB assumes that the trial was fair unless the Applicant can provide convincing evidence to the contrary. It is the Applicant’s burden to prove that he was not provided a fair trial if he wants relief. Since there was no documentation provided, the NDRB finds no basis to rebut it’s presumption of regularity of Government Affairs. Relief denied.

Issues 3-4: (Decisional) () . The Applicant contends that he was not provided appropriate medical care while incarcerated and that there was an environment of racism within the Command. The Applicant provided no additional documentation for the NDRB’s consideration in relation to either of these issues, other than his own personal statement, to rebut the Government’s presumption of regularity. 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 remain UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS and the narrative reason for separation shall remain MISCONDUCT – COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE. 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