ex-GM3, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request


Applicant’s Request:     Characterization change to:     
         Narrative Reason change to:      COMPLETION OF REQUIRED ACTIVE SERVICE

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive:        USNR (DEP)       19950629 - 19950726     Active:           19950727 – 19990815 Hon

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Current Enlistment: 19991026    Age at Enlistment:
Period of Enlistment: Years 17 MONTHS Extension
Date of Discharge: 20050325     Highest Rank/Rate: GM2
Length of Service: Year(s) Month(s) 00 Day(s)
Education Level:        AFQT: 70
Evaluation Marks:        Performance: 3.5 (6)     Behavior: 2.8 (6)       OTA: 3.12

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

Periods of UA/CONF:

NJP: 2

- 20030911:      Article (Failure to obey order or regulation, Failed to inventory all weapons and ammunition as was his duty to do as the Ready for Issue Supervisor.)
         Article (False Official Statement, Declared all weapons and rounds are accounted for, which statement was false in that 5 rounds were missing.)
         Awarded: Suspended:

- 20041007:      Article 134 (General Article, altered an evaluation and counseling record by changing the report from “Promotable” to “Early Promote,” and deleting the sentence, “Petty Officer Jones’ promotion recommendation is marked promotable because he failed to attain his ESWS qualification.”)
         Awarded: Suspended:

SCM:

SPCM:

CC:

Retention Warning Counseling: 1

- 20030911:      For NJP received on 20031109 [Extracted form CO’s letter of 20050415 to Commander, Navy Personnel Command (PERS-832)]




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), re-issued October 2002, effective 22 August 2002 until 25 April 2005, 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 IV, Para 403m(7)(b), Presumption Concerning Court-Martial Specifications.

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

Applicant’s Issues

1.       The Applicant contends that his discharge was improper because he did not receive the appropriate NAVPERS 1070/613 (Retention Warning) that is required by MILPERSMAN 1910-140 (Pattern of Misconduct) as evidenced by the lack of same in the enclosures box of the separation letter.
2.       The Applicant contends that his EAOS date fell before the date that he was to be administratively discharged due to the administrative discharge process taking longer than the recommended 50 days. (MILPERSMAN 1910-010) Because the Applicant reached his EAOS before the Admin discharge date, the Applicant contends his narrative reason should read Completion of Required Active Service.

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 did complete 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) warnings, for of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation by failing to inventory weapons and ammunition), Article 107 (False official statement, by logging in the logbook that he had inventoried weapons and ammunition when in reality he had not), and Article 134 (General Article, by changing pertinent information on his counseling and evaluation report). 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 exercised rights to consult with a qualified counsel, submit a written statement, and request an administrative board. The Board recommended 3-0 to separate the Applicant with and UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS discharge.

: (Decisional) () . The Applicant contends that his discharge was improper because he did not receive the appropriate NAVPERS 1070/613 (Retention Warning) that is required by MILPERSMAN 1910-140 (Pattern of Misconduct) as evidenced by the lack of same in the enclosures box of the separation letter. Although the NAVPERS 1070/613 is not contained in the record, the letter from the Commanding Officer, Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, to Commander, Navy Personnel Command (PERS-832), clearly indicates that a NAVPERS 1070/613 warning was issued 11 September 2003 for the NJP that was conducted the same date. The NDRB assumes regularity in the conduct of government affairs, and it is therefore incumbent on the Applicant to prove that the warning was never issued. Relief Denied.

: (Decisional) () . The Applicant contends that his EAOS date fell before the date that he was to be administratively discharged due to the administrative discharge process taking longer than the recommended 50 days. (MILPERSMAN 1910-010) Because the Applicant reached his EAOS before the Admin discharge date, the Applicant contends his narrative reason should read Completion of Required Active Service. The letter from the Separating Authority, Commanding Officer, Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, dated 25 February, 2005, directs the discharge by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct. It is unclear to the board why there seemed to be a delay in the actual discharge, but it was clear that the discharge was directed prior to the Applicant’s End of Active Obligated Service (EAOS). Therefore, the board determined that an upgrade based solely on this issue would be inappropriate. 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 PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT. 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