ex-GSMFN, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request


Applicant’s Request:     Characterization change to:     
         Narrative Reason change to:      MEDICAL

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive:        USNR (DEP)       20020108 - 20020129     Active: 

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Current Enlistment: 20020130    Age at Enlistment:
Period of Enlistment: Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20031112     Highest Rank/Rate: GSM3 (FROCKED)
Length of Service: Year(s) Month(s) 13 Day(s)
Education Level:        AFQT: 41
Evaluation Marks: NFIR

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):    

Periods of UA/CONF:

NJP:

- 20020403:      Article
         Awarded: Suspended:

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:        

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), re-issued October 2002, effective 22 August 2002 until 30 May 2005, 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)(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 that he needs the requested changes in order to gain benefits and assistance.
2.       The Applicant contends that he should have been issued an uncharacterized discharge with a narrative reason of Medical as he served his country during a time of war.
3.       The Applicant contends that he did not knowingly use PCP and that he had consumed alcohol to excess around the time period he tested positive for PCP.

Decision

Date: 20150527            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 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 for of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 107 (False official statements). The record also showed he was pending court-martial for testing positive for PCP at 138 ng/ml. The Applicant also had a pre-service drug waiver for using marijuana 1,000 times prior to entering the Navy. On 14 October 2003, the Applicant submitted his request for separation in lieu of trial by court-martial (SILT). In the request for discharge, the Applicant noted that his counsel had fully explained the elements of the offenses for which he was charged and that he was guilty of those offenses. He 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.

: (Nondecisional) The Applicant contends that he needs the requested changes in order to gain benefits and assistance. 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. 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.

: (Decisional) () . The Applicant contends that he should have been issued an uncharacterized discharge with a narrative reason of Medical as he served his country during a time of war. 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. Since the Applicant served for 651 days, an Uncharacterized discharge would not have been an appropriate characterization of service. Additionally, the Applicant’s service record contained one NJP for violation of the UCMJ: Article 107 (False official statements) and a SILT request for the use of PCP as confirmed by a command urinalysis.

Furthermore, a review of the Applicant’s service record failed to find any documentary evidence of a medical condition that would have warranted a medical separation. 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. Had the Applicant been suffering from a medical condition at the time of his discharge processing, Department of Defense regulations provide that disciplinary separations supersede disability separations. Appropriate regulations stipulate that separations for misconduct take precedence over potential separations for other reasons. Whenever a member is being processed for medical separation, 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 Board for Correction of Naval Records can grant this type of narrative reason change.

Finally, contrary to the Applicant’s personal statement to this board, the record of evidence shows the Applicant did not serve in Iraq in 2003. While the Applicant may have enlisted during a time of war, his record clearly demonstrates that he did not serve in a combat zone. Therefore, the NDRB found the Applicant’s issue to be without merit. Relief denied.

: (Decisional) () . The Applicant contends that he did not knowingly use PCP and that he had consumed alcohol to excess around the time period he tested positive for PCP. Alcohol consumption is never a rationale or an acceptable excuse for inappropriate conduct, misconduct, or poor judgment. The record of evidence clearly shows the Applicant waived his rights to trial by court-martial by requesting a SILT. If the Applicant felt he was mistakenly charged with a crime, it was his obligation to contest those charges at the time they were made. During a trial he would have had the opportunity to mount a defense against the charges. The Applicant submitted no evidence to support his contention, therefore, the NDRB must rely upon the presumption of regularity in the conduct of Government affairs.

Urinalysis specimens arriving at a Navy Drug Screening Laboratory (NDSL) are inspected for container damage or evidence of tampering, with particular attention to the condition of the box seals, which should be intact with the command’s Urinalysis Program Coordinator’s signature printed across the taped box seams. After the package has passed this inspection, lab technicians unpack the urine specimens and carefully check that all bottles in the box correspond to the sample entries written on the accompanying chain of custody form (DD 2624). The bottles are then removed and inspected with the technicians noting any specimen container discrepancies, such as broken bottles, damage of tamper evidence seals, missing, incorrect, or incomplete social security numbers on the bottle labels or DD 2624s, and leakage of urine. The lab reports all discrepancies back to the command. If the discrepancies are serious enough to raise doubt in the validity of the results, the samples will not be tested. The NDSL conducts an initial screening test on all specimens and negative specimens are discarded. If a sample screens positive during the initial screening, it is then tested a second time. If the sample screens negative during the second screening, it is discarded. If the sample screens positive a second time, it is considered a “presumptive positive.” All “presumptive positive” specimens undergo a Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry confirmation test. The specimen must have tested positive in all three tests (screen, rescreen and confirmatory) and passed scrutiny in numerous reviews by drug testing experts prior to being certified as a positive result and reported to the originating command. This certification, which is made by a senior chemist, is the final seal of approval necessary prior to reporting the specimen as a positive. If the final certifying official has any doubt as to the accuracy, scientific validity or legal defensibility of the test results, the specimen is reported as negative in favor of the service member. 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