ex-MM3, 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)       19970718 - 19980614     Active:  19980615 - 20001214

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Current Enlistment: 20001215    Age at Enlistment:
Period of Enlistment: Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20020409     Highest Rank/Rate: MM2
Length of Service: Year(s) Month(s) 26 Day(s)
Education Level:        AFQT: 91
Evaluation Marks:        Performance: 2.0 (2)     Behavior: 2.0 (2)       OTA: 2.00

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):    

Periods of Time Lost per DD Form 214: 20010823 – 20011128; 20011215 - 20020317

NJP:

- 20020306:      Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation, on or about 20020117 wrongfully consume one bottle of Robitussin with the intent to induce intoxication of excitement, or stupefaction of the central nervous system)
         Awarded: Suspended:

SCM:

- 20011212:      Article 86 (Absence without leave, 20010823 – 20011129)
         Sentence:

SPCM:

CC:

Retention Warning Counseling:









Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

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

         “CONTINUOUS HONORABLE ACTIVE SERVICE FROM 980615 UNTIL 001214”
        
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. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 31, effective 25 January 2001 until
21 August 2002, 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, Articles 86 and 92.

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

Applicant’s Issues

1.       The Applicant contends he was forced to reenlist against his will.
2.       The Applicant contends he was bullied and antagonized.
3.       The Applicant contends he is innocent of doing drugs.
4.       The Applicant contends chemical exposure led to his misconduct.
5.       The Applicant contends his depression led to his misconduct.
6.       The Applicant contends personal problems led to his misconduct.
7.       The Applicant contends his post-service conduct warrants an upgrade.

Decision

Date: 20150402            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 for of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation) and for of the UCMJ: Article 86 (Absence without leave). Additionally, the Applicant went UA again from 15 December 2001 to 17 March 2002 and had a positive urinalysis test for THC on 04 April 2002. Based on the offenses committed by the Applicant, 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 board.

: (Decisional) () . The Applicant contends he was forced to reenlist against his will. The Applicant further contends he was bullied and antagonized. The NDRB is not an investigative body, and allegations of improper or illegal behavior should be made to an appropriate law enforcement organization or the Naval Inspector General’s Office. However, in regards to 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 NDRB determined that the Applicant’s statements do not overcome the presumption of regularity in this case. More importantly, the Applicant failed to demonstrate that he should not be held accountable for his own misconduct. Further, if the Applicant felt there were mitigating circumstances, it was his obligation to contest the charges at the time they were made. During a trial or administrative separation board, he would have had the opportunity to mount a defense against the charges. Instead, the record indicates that he waived his right to trial by courts-martial and waived his right to an administrative board; thus accepting his discharge. The NDRB discerned no impropriety or inequity and the Applicant’s separation for his misconduct was appropriate. 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. Relief denied.

: (Decisional) () . The Applicant contends he is innocent of doing drugs. The Applicant further implies that he has never done drugs; however, the record clearly shows the Applicant had an enlistment waiver for using marijuana three times pre-service and he annotated this illegal drug use on his security clearance questionnaire. Although the Applicant failed to provide any proof to support he is innocent of doing drugs while in service, the evidence in the record is to the contrary. Nonetheless, the Applicant’s drug use (or alleged non-use) was not the primary basis for the Applicant’s separation. The Applicant was notified of separation based on commission of a serious offense which occurred prior to his positive urinalysis test which was on 04 April 2002. The Applicant had significant periods of UA, as well as a failure to obey an order or regulation. These violations are considered serious offenses and each would warrant separation on their own. The NDRB discerned no impropriety or inequity and the Applicant’s separation for his misconduct was appropriate. Relief denied.

Issues 4-5: (Decisional) () . The Applicant contends chemical exposure led to his misconduct. The Applicant further contends his depression led to his misconduct. The record of evidence clearly shows the Applicant waived his rights to trial by court-martial and an administrative separation board. If the Applicant felt there were mitigating circumstances to his misconduct, it was his obligation to contest those charges at the time they were made. During a trial or administrative separation board, he would have had the opportunity to bring forth any mitigating circumstances. Regardless, 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. However, the NDRB does not consider the circumstances surrounding the Applicant’s stated condition or diagnosis to be of sufficient nature to excuse the Applicant’s misconduct. Relief denied.

6: (Decisional) () . The Applicant contends personal problems led to his misconduct. While the Applicant may feel that his family difficulties were a contributing factor to his misconduct, they do not mitigate his disobedience of the orders and directives that regulate good order and discipline in the Naval Service, demonstrating he was unsuitable for further service. 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.

7: (Decisional) () . The Applicant contends his post-service conduct warrants 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 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: 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