ex-BMSN, 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)       20100212 - 20100418     Active: 

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Current Enlistment: 20100419    Age at Enlistment:
Period of Enlistment: Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20111019     Highest Rank/Rate: BMSN
Length of Service: Year(s) Month(s) 01 Day(s)
Education Level:        AFQT: 51
Evaluation Marks:        Performance: 3.5 (2)     Behavior: 2.0 (2)       OTA: 3.00

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):     Pistol

Periods of UA/CONF:

NJP:

- 20101203:      Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation)
         Article 134 (General article – Disorderly conduct, drunkenness)
         Awarded: Suspended:

- 20110422:      Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation)
         Article 109 (Property other than military property of the United States – waste, spoilage, or destruction)
         Article 134 (General article – Disorderly conduct, drunkenness)
         Awarded: Suspended:

- 20111001:      Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation)
         Article 134 (General article – Drunkenness, incapacitation for performance of duties through prior wrongful indulgence in intoxicating liquor or any drug)
         Awarded: Suspended:

SCM:

SPCM:

CC:

Retention Warning Counseling:

- 20101205:      For your violations of the UCMJ: Articles 92 and 134.

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 29, effective 10 November 2009 until Present, 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 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 improve his employment and education opportunities.
2.       The Applicant contends he should have received a medical discharge for his addiction.
3.       The Applicant contends his in-service conduct warrants an upgrade.
4.       The Applicant contends his recruiter misled him about being stationed overseas and would receive a higher rank for his ROTC experience.
5.       The Applicant contends his supervisors pushed him to drink with them.
6.       The Applicant contends personal problems led to his misconduct.
7.       The Applicant contends no help was offered.

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 NAVPERS 1070/613 (Page 13) warning and for of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation, 3 specifications), Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation, 2 specifications), and Article 134 (General article, 3 specifications). 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 a General Court-Martial Convening Authority review.

: (Nondecisional) The Applicant seeks to improve his employment and education 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.

: (Decisional) () . The Applicant contends he should have received a medical discharge for his addiction. Per regulations, the initiation and submission of medical boards are at the discretion of the individual physician. There is no indication in the evidence of record or in the documentation submitted by the Applicant that the Applicant was recommended for or processed for a medical board by proper authority. Further, the evidence of record does not indicate that proper authority erred by not initiating a medical board for the Applicant. Therefore, the NDRB found the Applicant’s issue to be without merit. Relief denied.

: (Decisional) () . The Applicant contends his in-service conduct warrants an upgrade. The Applicant was administratively separated and not separated upon expiration of enlistment or fulfillment of service obligation. The characterization of service is determined by the quality of the member’s total performance of duty and conduct during the current enlistment, including the reason for separation. Other considerations shall be given to the member’s length of service, grade, aptitude, and physical and mental condition. Based on the Applicant’s persistent misconduct throughout his short career, the NDRB determined the Applicant is extremely fortunate that his command did not pursue a punitive discharge or an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions characterization. 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.

4: (Decisional) () . The Applicant contends his recruiter misled him about being stationed overseas and would receive a higher rank for his ROTC experience. The government enjoys a presumption of regularity in the conduct of its affairs. The Applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support his issue. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the Applicant produced any evidence, to support the contention that the recruiter misled him through the recruitment process. The Applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity in this case. However, even if the Applicant could show misrepresentations in the recruitment process, such misrepresentations would neither amount to a justification nor to a defense for the Applicant’s own misconduct. Relief denied.

5: (Decisional) () . The Applicant contends his supervisors pushed him to drink with them. If the Applicant felt there were mitigating circumstances, it was his obligation to contest the charges at the time they were made. When notified of administrative separation proceedings, the Applicant waived his rights to contest his separation, thus accepting his discharge and his characterization. More importantly, the Applicant failed to demonstrate that he should not be held accountable for his own misconduct. Based on the Applicant’s record of service to include three NJPs, 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. However, the Separating Authority demonstrated leniency and awarded the Applicant an Under Honorable Conditions (General) characterization. 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. Relief denied.

7: (Decisional) () . The Applicant contends no help was offered. Regulations require members who have an ongoing history of alcohol abuse to be medically screened for an alcohol problem. If diagnosed as dependent on alcohol by competent medical authority, which does not include the commanding officer, appropriate treatment must be offered prior to separation. The Applicant stated in his DD Form 293 that his command sent him to Yokosuka, Japan to attend AA meetings. Therefore, the NDRB concluded the command acted appropriately, equitably, and properly in processing the Applicant for 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 UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL) 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: 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