ex-BUCA, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request


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

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Active: 

Pre-Service Drug Waiver:

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 19990316    Age at Enlistment:
Period of Enlistment: Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20000713     Highest Rank/Rate: BUCN
Length of Service: Year(s) Month(s) 0 Day(s)
Education Level:        AFQT: 67
Evaluation Marks:        Performance: 2 (1)       Behavior: 1 (1)         OTA: 1.83

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):    

Periods of CONF:

NJP:

- 19990625:      Article (Failure to obey order or regulation) 2 specifications
         Specification 1: On or about 19990618 willfully failed to stand his watch.
         Specification 2: On or about 19990621 smoked a cigarette while marching in ranks back to Charlie company.
         Article 113 (Misbehavior of a sentinel or lookout) On or about 19990618 found sleeping in rack while posted as a lookout.
         Awarded: Suspended:

SCM:

- 20000530:      Article (Absence without leave) On or about 0645, 20000117 to 0845 20000117
         Article (Assault) 2 specifications
         Specification 1: On or about 20000118 assault PO2 by unlawfully striking him in various places of his body several times hitting him with his fists.
         Specification 2: On or about 20000118 assault PO2 who was known by the accused to be a person then having and in the execution of military police duties, by kicking him in the groin.
         Article (General article) 2 specifications:
         Specification 1: On or about 20000118 was drunk and disorderly.
         Specification 2: On or about 20000516 was drunk and disorderly.
         Sentence: (20000530-20000625, 25 days)
         CA: The sentence is approved and will be executed


SPCM:

CIVIL ARREST:

CC:

Retention Warning Counseling:

- 19990624:      For violation of UCMJ articles 92 (2 specifications) and 113.

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

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

         “”
         “MILPERSMAN 1910-140”
         “HKA”

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 22, effective 15 December 1998 until
21 August 2002, 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 .

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

Applicant’s Issues

1. The Applicant contends that youth and immaturity contributed to his misconduct.
2. The Applicant contends he had a problem with alcohol and that his command failed to offer him treatment for his disease.
3. The Applicant contends the past 15 years has been rough, but he has worked steadily and is deserving of an upgrade.

Decision

Date: 20150311            Location: Washington D.C.        Representation:

By a vote of the Characterization shall .
By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT.

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 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, 2 specifications), and Article 113 (Misbehavior of a sentinel or lookout); and for of the UCMJ: Article 86 (Absence without leave), and Article 128 (Assault, 2 specifications). The Applicant a pre-service drug waiver for using marijuana prior to entering the Navy. Based on the Article 112a violation, processing for administrative separation is mandatory. When notified of administrative separation processing using the procedure, the Applicant rights to consult with a qualified counsel, submit a written statement, and request an administrative board.

: (Decisional) () . The Applicant contends that youth and immaturity contributed to his misconduct. While the Applicant may feel his youth and immaturity were the underlying causes of his misconduct, the record clearly reflects his willful misconduct and demonstrated he was unfit for further service. The evidence of record does not demonstrate the Applicant was not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions. The NDRB recognizes that serving in the military is challenging. Most servicemembers, however, serve honorably and therefore earn their Honorable discharges. In fairness to those servicemembers who served honorably, commanders and separation authorities are tasked to ensure that undeserving Sailors receive no higher characterization than is due. The NDRB found the characterization of the Applicant’s discharge was equitable and consistent with the characterization of discharge given others in similar circumstances. Relief denied.


: (Decisional) () . The Applicant contends he had a problem with alcohol and his command failed to offer him treatment for his disease. The record of evidence clearly depict the Applicant’s misconduct. 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 Applicant provided a statement indicating he was not offered treatment for alcohol abuse. In contrast, the record reflects the Applicant’s command was directed by Commander, Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division to comply with MILPERSMAN 1910 which states “members who are drug/alcohol dependent must be offered Level III inpatient treatment prior to discharge, regardless of reason for which member was processed or discharged, unless they have completed the same type treatment with in the past 3 years.” Therefore, the Board concluded the command acted appropriately, equitably, and properly in processing the Applicant for separation. Relief denied.

: (Decisional) () . The Applicant contends the past 15 years has been rough, but he has worked steadily and is deserving of an upgrade. The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the re-characterization of a discharge. However, there is no law, or regulation, that provides that an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Normally, to permit relief, a procedural impropriety or inequity must have been found to exist during the period of enlistment in question. Besides the Applicant’s statement on the DD Form 293, he failed to provide any documentary evidence on his behalf for post-service consideration. The Applicant could have provided documentation as detailed in the Post-Service Conduct paragraph in the Addendum with the recognition that 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. Without post-service documentary evidence, the Board determined the awarded characterization of service shall remain Under Other Than Honorable Conditions. 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