ex-YN2, 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)       20000713 - 20000917     Active:  20000918 – 20040920 HON
                                    20040921 – 20070409 HON
Pre-Service Drug Waiver:

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20070410    Age at Enlistment:
Period of Enlistment: Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20080820     Highest Rank/Rate: YN2
Length of Service: Year(s) Month(s) 11 Day(s)
Education Level:        AFQT: 78
Evaluation Marks:        Performance: NFIR        Behavior: NFIR  OTA: NFIR

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):     (3) (2) FLoC

Periods of UA/CONF:

NJP: SCM: SPCM: CC: Retention Warning Counseling:

NDRB Documentary Review Conducted (date):        20130418
NDRB Documentary Review Docket Number:   ND12-01491
NDRB Documentary Review Findings:                 Proper as issued and that no change is warranted.

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

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

“00 09 18”
         “07 10 29”
         Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, should read: “NAVY AND MARINE CORPS ACHIEVEMENT MEDAL (3), GOOD CONDUCT MEDAL (2), NATIONAL DEFENSE SERVICE MEDAL, FLAG LETTER OF COMMENDATION, OVERSEAS SERVICE RIBBON (2), GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM SERVICE MDAL, LETTER OF ACHIEVEMENT (2)”
         “CONTINUOUS HONORABLE ACTIVE SERVICE FROM 000918 UNTIL 070409”
         “17MAY01 TO 21MAY01”
        
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. The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 23, effective 2 June 2008 until 9 November 2009, Article 1910-146, SEPARATION BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT - DRUG ABUSE.

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 .

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

Applicant’s Issues

1.       The Applicant seeks a change in her RE-code in order to reenlist into the Armed Forces.
2.       The Applicant contends that since the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) deemed all periods of her service Honorable for VA purposes, her discharge characterization should be upgraded to Honorable.
3.       The Applicant contends that her discharge characterization should be upgraded to Honorable because she suffered from a severe medical disorder that the VA found to be service connected.
4. The Applicant contends her post-service conduct warrants an upgrade to Honorable.

Decision

Date: 20150309            Location: Washington D.C.        Representation: NONE

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 Post-traumatic stress disorder (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 either PTSD or TBI. 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).

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 discharge and the discharge process to ensure discharge met the pertinent standards of equity and propriety. The Applicant’s record of service included no NAVPERS 1070/613 (Page 13) warnings and no nonjudicial punishment or court-martial. Based on the Article 112a violation, processing for administrative separation is mandatory. The NDRB did not have the Applicant’s administrative separation package to determine whether or not the Applicant waived right to submit a written statement. However, per the Applicant’s DD Form 214, the Separation Code GKK indicates the Applicant exercised her right to an administrative board. Based on the Applicant’s testimony, she exercised her right to consult with a qualified counsel.

: (Nondecisional) The Applicant seeks a change in her RE-code in order to reenlist into the Armed Forces. Effective 6 February 2015, the NDRB is authorized to change a NDRB Applicant’s Reenlistment Code if related to an accompanying change in discharge characterization or narrative, but this authority is strictly limited to those cases where an applicant’s narrative reason or characterization of discharge is changed and that change warrants revision of the previously issued reenlistment code. 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.

: (Decisional) () . The Applicant contends that since the VA deemed all periods of her service Honorable for VA purposes, her discharge characterization should be upgraded to Honorable. The NDRB did note an administrative error on the original DD Form 214: Block 18, Remarks, should contain the statement: “CONTINUOUS HONORABLE ACTIVE SERVICE FROM 000918 UNTIL 070409”. The Applicant provided documentation of her in-service achievements; however, each period of enlistment is an independent obligation and characterization is determined for that specific period of time. Based on the Applicant’s record of service, the NDRB determined the Applicant engaged in conduct involving one or more acts or omissions that constituted a significant departure from the conduct expected of members of the Naval Service, and the awarded characterization of service was warranted for Under Other Than Honorable Conditions. Furthermore, the NDRB is not bound by VA decisions, nor do VA decisions have any bearing on the decisions of the NDRB. Decisions reached by the VA to determine if former service members rate certain VA benefits do not affect previous discharge decisions made by the Navy. The criteria used by the VA in determining whether a former service member is eligible for benefits are different than that used by the Navy when determining a member’s discharge characterization. Relief denied.

: (Decisional) () . The Applicant contends that her discharge characterization should be upgraded to Honorable because she suffered from a severe medical disorder that the VA found to be service connected. When reviewing a discharge, the NDRB does consider the extent to which a medical problem might affect an Applicant’s performance and ability to conform to the military’s standards of conduct and discipline. Based on the Applicant’s testimony, she was aware of the numerous services available for service members who undergo medical problems such as PTSD with major depressive disorder, sleep disorder, and alcohol abuse. The record shows that the Applicant utilized these services for previous medical issues prior to her misconduct which confirms her awareness of the services. The Applicant claims that her medical issues led to her misconduct of drug abuse; however, based on her testimony and a thorough review of the record and documentation provided by the Applicant, the NDRB did not consider the circumstances surrounding the her stated condition or diagnosis to be of sufficient nature to excuse the Applicant’s misconduct. Additionally, the NDRB determined that PTSD did not mitigate the Applicant’s misconduct. Relief denied.

: (Decisional) () . The Applicant contends her 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 evidence of volunteer service, a resume as evidence of continuous employment, and her Bachelor Science Degree with a major in Information Sciences and Technology. 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 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 by the NDRB. The Applicant may petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records, 701 South Courthouse Road, Suite 1001, Arlington, VA 22204-2490 for further review using DD Form 149. Their website can be found at http://www.donhq.navy.mil/bcnr/bcnr.htm. 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 : Effective 6 February 2015, the NDRB is authorized to change a NDRB Applicant’s Reenlistment Code if related to an accompanying change in discharge characterization or narrative, but this authority is strictly limited to those cases where an applicant’s narrative reason or characterization of discharge is changed and that change warrants revision of the previously issued reenlistment code. 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