ex-MMC(SS), USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request


Applicant’s Request:     Characterization change to:     
         Narrative Reason change to:     
        
Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive:        USAR NFIR                Active:  USN 20000330 - 20020410
                                    USN 20020411 - 20071113
                                    USN 20071114 - 20091013
Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Current Enlistment: 20091013    Age at Enlistment:
Period of Enlistment: Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20111031     Highest Rank/Rate: MMC(SS)
Length of Service: Year(s) Month(s) 19 Day(s)
Education Level:        AFQT: 99
Evaluation Marks:        Performance: 3.8 (4)     Behavior: 3.8 (4)       OTA: 3.72

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):     Rifle Pistol (6) NEM (2) ESI (2) AAM (2) ARAM

Periods of UA/CONF:

NJP:

- 20101119:      Article 107 (False official statements)
         Awarded: Suspended:

SCM:     SPCM:    CC:

Retention Warning Counseling:

- 20101119:      For your violation of the UCMJ: Article 107 (False official statements)


Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

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

         “00 03 30”
         “11 07 02”
        

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. The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 31, effective 13 April 2010 until Present, Article 1910-156, SEPARATION BY REASON OF UNSATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE.

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 seeks to have his $80,000 federal debt dismissed.
2.       The Applicant contends that he lost his Navy enlisted classification (NEC) Code due to misinformation.
3.       The Applicant contends his commanding officer informed him he would not be separated for his offense.
4.       The Applicant contends it was an isolated incident.

Decision

Date: 20150325            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 Applicant’s record of service included NAVPERS 1070/613 (Page 13) warning and for of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 107 (False official statements). Based on the Applicant’s unsatisfactory performance, 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 separation board.

: (Nondecisional) The Applicant seeks to have his $80,000 federal debt dismissed. Regulations limit the NDRB’s review to a determination of the propriety and equity of the discharge. Therefore, the NDRB has no authority to dismiss debt or provide relief based on this contention. The Applicant submitted documents stating that he is currently in the process of requesting his debt to be dismissed from the Department of the Treasury and Defense Finance and Accounting Service.

: (Decisional) () . The Applicant contends that he lost his Navy enlisted classification (NEC) Code due to misinformation. The Applicant specifically references his letter of admonition and an e-mail from Command Master Chief, Naval Sea Systems Command that he contends are inconsistent. The NDRB did not come to the same conclusion that there was an inconsistency with the two documents. The Applicant accepted NJP and was found guilty at the NJP for a violation which could have resulted in a punitive discharge if awarded at a trial by court-martial. There is no evidence in the record that the Applicant ever demanded a trial by court-martial, appealed his NJP, or rebutted his letter of admonition. Additionally, the Applicant was given the opportunity to contest his discharge for his unsatisfactory performance at an administrative separation board but waived that right. The Applicant not only failed to prove his contention that he improperly lost his NEC, but all the evidence in the record is to the contrary. The Applicant was found guilty of committing a serious offense which eventually led to the removal of his NEC and subsequent discharge for his unsatisfactory performance. The NDRB discerned no impropriety or inequity and the Applicant’s separation for his unsatisfactory performance was appropriate. Relief denied.

Issues 3-4: (Decisional) () . The Applicant contends his commanding officer informed him he would not be separated for his offense. The Applicant further contends it was an isolated incident. Although the Applicant’s violation of the UCMJ was considered a serious offense and could warrant a punitive discharge if adjudicated at a trial by court-martial, he was not administratively separated directly based on this misconduct. Additionally, based on the Applicant’s overall record of service, the Separating Authority determined his characterization of service was Honorable. The Applicant stated that he lost his NEC. The Applicant’s request for a forced rating conversion was subsequently disapproved and he was given the option to contest his administrative separation but waived that right; thus accepting the discharge recommended in the letter of notification. The NDRB discerned no impropriety or inequity and the Applicant’s separation for his unsatisfactory performance was appropriate. The NDRB determined that no other narrative reason more clearly describes the circumstances surrounding the Applicant’s processing for administrative separation. 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 HONORABLE and the narrative reason for separation shall remain UNSATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE. 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: 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