ex-OS3, 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)20060531-20061001     Active: 

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Current Enlistment: 20061002          Age at Enlistment:
Period of Enlistment: Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20121026      Highest Rank/Rate: OS3
Length of Service: Year(s) Month(s) 21 Day(s)
Education Level:         AFQT: 85
Evaluation Marks:        Performance: 3.00 (5)    Behavior: 2.40 (5)       OTA: 2.86

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):    

Periods of UA/CONF:

NJP:

- 20080514:      Article 86 (Absence without leave, 3 Specifications)
         Article
         Article
         Article 134 (General article, Adultery)          
         Awarded: Suspended:

- 20100301:      Article
         Awarded: Suspended:

SCM: SPCM: CIVIL ARREST: CC:

Retention Warning Counseling:

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:        

Types of Witnesses Who Testified

         Expert:           Character:      

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 11, effective 31 May 2005 until Present, Article 1910-106, SEPARATION IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT-MARTIAL.

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)(a), Presumption Concerning Court-Martial Specifications.

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

Applicant’s Issues

1. The Applicant contends his mental health issues are mitigation for his misconduct.
2. The Applicant contends his mental health disorder was overlooked, pushed aside, or ignored by his superiors and he
received only enough treatment to clear him to transfer him to another command.
3. The Applicant contends his service merits consideration for an upgrade.

Decision

Date: 20150604            Location: Washington D.C.        Representation:

By a vote of the Characterization shall .
By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall .

Discussion

As a result of the Applicant’s claim that a MENTAL HEALTH DIAGNOSIS impacted his discharge, and in accordance with U.S. Code, Title X, Section 1553 (e)(2), the Naval Discharge Review Board included a member who is a physician, clinical psychologist, or psychiatrist. The Applicant’s service record documents that the Applicant was diagnosed with a mental health disorder while serving in the armed forces.

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 86 (Absence without leave, 3 Specifications), Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation), Article 111 (Drunken or reckless operation of a vehicle), Article 128 (Assault), and Article 134 (General article, Adultery). Facing additional charges at a Special Court-Martial, the Applicant voluntarily submitted a request for separation in lieu of trial by court-martial and admitted guilt for violation of Articles 86, 91, 92, and 113. The NDRB did have the Applicant’s administrative separation package and separation in lieu of trial by court-martial agreement. The Applicant certified a complete understanding of the negative consequences of his actions and that characterization of service could be Under Other Than Honorable Conditions, which might deprive him of virtually all veterans benefits based upon his current enlistment. The Navy accepted his request and discharged him Under Other Than Honorable Conditions.

: (Decisional) () . The Applicant contends his mental health issues are mitigation for his misconduct. Additionally, the Applicant contends his mental health disorder was overlooked, pushed aside, or ignored by his superiors and he received only enough treatment to clear him in order to transfer him to another command. In determining discharge characterization of service, the Applicant’s conduct forms the primary basis for consideration. The Applicant’s in-service conduct included two nonjudicial punishments and a SILT; this was a willful failure to meet the requirements of his contract honorably. However, the Applicant contends his MENTAL HEALTH DIAGNOSIS was a mitigating factor in his misconduct. The Applicant’s official military service record diagnosis of a MENTAL HEALTH DIAGNOSIS does not support the Applicant’s contention that his MENTAL HEALTH DIAGNOSIS was a mitigating factor associated with the in-service misconduct. The Applicant bears the burden of proving his contention through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the Applicant produced any documented evidence for the NDRB’s consideration, to support the contention the Applicant deserves an upgrade in characterization. Moreover, The NDRB determined that the Applicant was responsible for his conduct and that he should be held accountable for his actions. After an exhaustive review, the NDRB determined that the Applicant’s Mental Health Diagnosis did not warrant mitigation. Relief denied.





: (Decisional) () . The Applicant contends his service merits consideration for an upgrade. 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 Marines and Sailors who served honorably, Commanders and Separation Authorities are tasked to ensure that undeserving servicemembers 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.

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 IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT MARTIAL. 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