ex-SN, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request


Applicant’s Request:     Characterization change to:     
         Narrative Reason change to:     
         Reentry Code change to:

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive:        USNR (DEP)       20040716 - 20040824     Active: 

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Current Enlistment: 20040825    Age at Enlistment:
Period of Enlistment: Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20050309     Highest Rank/Rate: SN
Length of Service: Year(s) Month(s) 13 Day(s)
Education Level:        AFQT: 42
Evaluation Marks:        Performance: NFIR        Behavior: NFIR  OTA: NFIR

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):    

Periods of UA/CONF:

NJP: SCM: SPCM: 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), re-issued October 2002, effective 22 August 2002 until 19 June 2005, Article 1910-122, Separation By Reason of Convenience of the Government - Personality Disorder(s).

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 contends he wrongfully discharged because he was not a danger to himself or others.
2.       The Applicant contends his discharge was inequitable because his command was wrongfully influenced by the physician’s recommendation for separation.
3.       The Applicant contends he was separated from the Navy for invalid and erroneous reasons.
4.       The Applicant contends that his post-service is worthy of 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 .
By a vote of the Reenlistment Code 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 Board did complete a thorough review of the circumstances that led to discharge and the discharge process to ensure discharge met the pertinent standards of equity and propriety. The Applicant’s record of service included no NAVPERS 1070/613 (Page 13) warnings and no misconduct resulting in nonjudicial punishment or court-martial. Based on the Applicant’s personality disorder, 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.

: (Decisional) () . The Applicant contends he was wrongfully discharged because he was not a danger to himself or others. The Applicant was found by competent medical authority that he was unfit for further service due to two suicide attempts in which impulsive behavior was discerned. Unless substantial and credible information exists to rebut the medical authority’s findings that occurred at or about the time of the Applicant’s separation from service, the NDRB does not have jurisdictional authority to override medical authority diagnoses or findings that result in administrative separation.

: (Decisional) () . The Applicant contends his discharge was inequitable because his command was wrongfully influenced by the physician’s recommendation for separation. The record clearly states that the Applicant had two suicide attempts. The NDRB determined the Applicant’s Command acted appropriately by sending the Applicant to mental health upon discovery the Applicant had attempted suicide, previously. The medical assessment to make a recommendation for administrative separation is at the discretion of the individual physician. The Separation Authority determines whether the basis for separation is substantiated by the evidence. There is no indication in the evidence of record or in the documentation submitted by the Applicant that the Applicant was wrongfully discharged. The NDRB determined personality disorder is an accurate narrative description of the reason for the Applicant’s discharge. There is no evidence that the Applicant was improperly diagnosed while in service. Therefore, the NDRB found the Applicant’s issue to be without merit. Relief denied.

: (Decisional) () . The Applicant contends he was separated from the Navy for invalid and erroneous reasons. 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 did the evidence produced by the Applicant support the contention that he was wrongfully discharged. The Applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity in this case. The commanding officer’s recommendation for separation is just that, a recommendation. The Separation Authority determines whether the allegations in the notification of the basis for separation are substantiated by the evidence. There is no provisional guarantee that a Marine will receive anything that a local commanding officer recommends.

An Uncharacterized discharge is warranted when separation is initiated while a member is within the first 180 days of continuous active duty except when the characterization of service as Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) is authorized or Honorable is clearly warranted. The Applicant had no misconduct that would rate an UOTHC discharge, and there was no evidence of unusual circumstances involving personal conduct and performance that would merit an Honorable characterization. Since the Applicant served only 176 days when notified, an Uncharacterized discharge is the most appropriate characterization of service.

Since the Applicant was diagnosed by a competent mental health professional with a personality disorder and determined to be a danger to himself or others, a NAVPERS 1070/613 counseling and warning does not apply. Relief denied.

Issue 4: (Decisional) () . The Applicant contends that his post-service is worthy of consideration for an upgrade. The NDRB considers 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. The Applicant provided a personal statement, awards and certificates, and four character references. The Applicant could have provided documentation as detailed in the Post-Service Conduct paragraph in the Addendum; however, 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. The Board determined that the documentation submitted by the Applicant does not demonstrate his personality disorder diagnosis was in error. The characterization of service received was appropriate considering the length of service and his personality disorder diagnosis. 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 UNCHARACTERIZED (ENTRY LEVEL SEPARATION) and the narrative reason for separation shall remain PERSONALITY DISORDER. 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