ex-AZAN, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request


Applicant’s Request:     Characterization change to:      HONORABLE
         Narrative Reason change to:      NONE REQUESTED

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive:        USNR (DEP)       20040615 - 20040802 COG         Active:  NONE

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Current Enlistment: 20040803    Age at Enlistment: 19
Period of Enlistment: 4 Years 12 MONTHS Extension
Date of Discharge: 20081216     Highest Rank/Rate: AZ3
Length of Service: 04 Year(s) 04 Month(s) 14 Day(s)
Education Level: 12     AFQT: 74
Evaluation Marks:        Performance: 3.50 (6)    Behavior: 2.17 (6)      OTA: 3.17

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):     NDSM GWOTSM EAWS

Periods of CONF: NONE

NJP: 2

- 20060413:      Article 121 (Larceny and wrongful appropriation; O/A 20060326 in Norfolk, VA, SNM committed larceny at the Norfolk Navy Exchange.)
         Awarded: FOP RESTR EPD RIR Suspended: RESTR RIR

- 20081021:      Article 86 (Absence without leave; O/A 20080914 onboard USS GEORGE WASHINGTON (CVN-64), SNM left place of duty.)
         Awarded: RESTR EPD RIR FOP Suspended: FOP

SCM: NONE

SPCM: NONE

CC: NONE

Retention Warning Counseling: 1

- 20060313:      For violation of the UCMJ, Article 121(Larceny and wrongful appropriation) resulting in NJP on 20060413.








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 23, effective 12 June 2008 until 9 November 2009, 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 86, absence without leave.

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

Applicant’s Issues

1. The Applicant is requesting upgrade in order to obtain educational benefits.
2. The Applicant contends that she was wrongfully discharged because her characterization of service does not correctly reflect the nature of her four years of service.
3. The Applicant contends that because she had honorably completed her four year enlistment and was serving under an extension at the request and convenience of the government that her discharge was improper.

Decision

Date: 20150325   DOCUMENTARY REVIEW      Location: Washington D.C.        Representation: NONE

By a vote of 5-0 the Characterization shall remain GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS) .
By a vote of 5-0 the Narrative Reason shall remain MISCONDUCT (SERIOUS OFFENSE) .

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 her discharge and the discharge process to ensure her discharge met the pertinent standards of equity and propriety. The Applicant’s record of service included one NAVPERS 1070/613 (Page 13) warning and two nonjudicial punishments (NJPs) for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 121 (Larceny and wrongful appropriation) and Article 86 (Absence without leave). Based on the offenses committed by the Applicant, her command administratively processed her for separation. When notified of administrative separation processing using the notification procedure, the Applicant exercised her rights to consult with a qualified counsel, submit a written statement, and request a General Court-Martial Convening Authority review.

Issue 1: (Nondecisional) The Applicant is requesting upgrade in order to obtain educational benefits. There is no requirement, or law, that grants re-characterization solely on the issue of facilitating access to VA benefits. Additionally, the NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing educational opportunities or employment opportunities. Regulations limit the NDRB’s review solely to a determination of the propriety and the equity of a discharge. As such, this issue does not serve to provide a foundation upon which the NDRB can grant relief.

Issue 2: (Decisional) (Equity) RELIEF NOT WARRANTED. The Applicant contends that she was wrongfully discharged because her characterization of service does not correctly reflect the nature of her four years of service. The Applicant provided a statement with her application explaining that her final NJP resulted from a misunderstanding concerning her whereabouts during a general quarters drill. 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’s administrative separation package documents that the Applicant appeared at NJP twice during her one year and nine months aboard the USS GEORGE WASHINGTON (CVN 73) and remarks written by her command indicate that she had issues with maturity and trustworthiness. A review of her performance evaluations during the enlistment revealed both favorable performance marks and supporting comments mixed with substandard performance. In determining discharge characterization of service, the Applicant’s conduct forms the primary basis for consideration. The Applicant’s in-service conduct included two NJPs for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 86 (Absence without leave) and Article 121 (Larceny and wrongful appropriation) during her four years of service and reflect a significant departure from the conduct expected from the Naval Service. The NDRB determined that a characterization of Under Other than Honorable Conditions was appropriate. Relief denied.

Issue 3: (Decisional) (Propriety) RELIEF NOT WARRANTED. The Applicant contends that because she had honorably completed her four year enlistment and was serving under an extension at the request and convenience of the government that her discharge was improper. Although the Applicant had served her original four-year contract, characterization of the current enlistment or period of service is determined by conduct, actions, or performance during that enlistment or service plus any extensions prescribed by law or regulations or effected with the consent of the member. Relief denied.

Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, service record entries, and discharge process, the Board found the discharge was proper and equitable. at the time of discharge. Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall remain GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS) and the narrative reason for separation shall remain MISCONDUCT (SERIOUS OFFENSE). The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing for a period of fifteen years from the date of her 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: 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