ex-SR, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received:  20081118
Characterization of Service Received:  
Narrative Reason for Discharge: 
Authority for Discharge:  MILPERSMAN 

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

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive: USNR (DEP)	20060426 - 20061210  	Active:	

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment:  20061211	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Extension
Date of Discharge:  20080318	Highest Rank/Rate:  SN
Length of Service:   Year    Month(s)   08 Day(s)
Education Level:  	AFQT:  39
Evaluation Marks:	Performance:  NFIR	Behavior:  NFIR	OTA:  NFIR

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	Rifle  Pistol    

Periods of UA/CONF:  

NJP:  
- 20071031:	Article 81 (Conspiracy to bring alcohol on board Naval vessel)
	Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation -2 specifications: Underage drinking and drinking on a US Navy vessel)
		Awarded:     Suspended:  

- 20080214:	Article 112a (Drug abuse, wrongful use of a controlled substance: methamphetamine)
		Awarded:     Suspended:    

SCM:     SPCM:     CC:  

Retention Warning Counseling:  

- 20071103:	For Article 81 conspiracy and Article 92 (2 specifications) failure to obey a lawful general regulation.

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

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

	  “UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS”

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:		Substance Abuse:			Criminal Records:	
	Family/Personal Status:		Community Service:		References:		
              Additional Statements:
                             From Applicant:  	From Representation:         	From Congress member:    

                    Other Documentation:  

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A.  The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 11, effective 29 April 2005 until Present, 
Article 1910-146, Separation by Reason of Misconduct - Drug Abuse.

B.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part II, Para 211, Regularity of Government Affairs, Part V, Para 502, Propriety and Para 503, Equity.

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:  Article 81 (Conspiracy), Article 92 (Failure to obey and order or regulation) and Article 112a (Drug abuse, wrongful use of a controlled substance).

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

Applicant’s Issues
1.  Reenlistment opportunities.
2.  Discharge inequitable and unjust.

Decision

Date:  20090305    	Location:  Washington D.C.	Representation:  

By a vote of  the Characterization shall  .
By a vote of  the Narrative Reason shall  MISCONDUCT (DRUG ABUSE).

Discussion

:   either  which the Board cannot form the basis of relief for the Applicant, or  the Board does not have the authority to grant the relief for which the Applicant petitioned.  The Applicant is directed to the Addendum, specifically the paragraph concerning s, regarding .

:  ()  .  The Applicant contends his discharge was unjust and inequitable because he was falsely accused of drug abuse, based on discrepancies in the collection procedure of the commands urinalysis program.  In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of Government affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the Applicant.  The Applicant’s record of service was marred by one retention warning and two NJP’s for violations of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ):  Article 81 (Conspiracy), Article 92 (Failure to obey and order or regulation) and Article 112a (Drug abuse, wrongful use of a controlled substance).   The NDRB advises the Applicant certain serious offenses warrant separation from the service in order to maintain proper order and discipline.  Violation of Article 112a is one such offense requiring mandatory separation regardless of time in service, grade or record of service.  Violations of this policy result in, at a minimum, mandatory processing for an administrative separation which usually results in an unfavorable characterization of discharge or, at a maximum, a punitive discharge and possible confinement if adjudicated and awarded as part of a sentence by a special or general court-martial.  The command did not pursue a punitive discharge but opted instead for an administrative discharge. 

Although the Applicant vehemently denies using drugs, he wrote a letter, dated 25 February 2008, to the Commanding Officer of the Bunker Hill (CG 52) requesting an Administration Separation.  The Applicant writes, “I am truly sorry for what I have done, for the misconduct and the hassle I have given to this command.  I know deep down I don’t deserve your consideration.  I am still young and I am afraid I have ruined my life.”  He also went on to say, “I made bad decisions once I dropped out of Hospital Corps School, and then I came here continued making a path of bad decisions, got in with the wrong crowd, and here I am.  As my First LT. ENS. B. said, “I am a subject of his 80/20 rule,” which is; there are people that take up eighty percent of his time, and others that only take up twenty percent; I took up the eighty percent.”  

In reviewing this case, it is evident the Applicant made mistakes that ended his time in the Navy and then tried to deny all misconduct, either out of shame or because he was afraid of the damage he has caused on his life, or because of both.  In his letter to the Commanding Officer, the Applicant finally takes responsibility for his actions, which is the first step on getting back on the right track.  The Board determined the Applicant was responsible for the misconduct that led to his discharge and that an upgrade would be inappropriate.

The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge.  However, there is no law or regulation, which provides an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in the civilian life subsequent to leaving the service.  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 help support a post service conduct upgrade includes, but is not limited to: a verifiable continuous employment record; marriage and children’s birth certificate (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; attending 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 previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member’s overall character.

Besides the Applicants statement on the DD Form 293, he provided references and correspondence any additional as evidence on his behalf.  However, to warrant an upgrade the Applicant’s post service efforts need to be more encompassing.  The Applicant could have produced additional evidence as stated in the above paragraph with the full understanding completion of these items alone does not guarantee an upgrade.  The Board determined the characterization of service received, “Under Other Than Honorable Conditions”, was an appropriate characterization considering the length of service and the UCMJ violations involved, and based on the limited post service documentation provided an upgrade would be inappropriate.  Should the Applicant feel at some later time his post service conduct is worthy of personally presenting to the NDRB there are organizations, such as the American Legion, Disabled American Veterans, etc. that are willing to provide guidance and assistance in preparing such a presentation.

After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service,   Record Entries, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found   

ADDENDUM:  Information for the Applicant

Complaint Procedures:  If you believe that 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:  Subsequent to a document review, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application is received at the NDRB within 15 years from the 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.  If a former member has been discharged for more than 15 years, has already been granted a personal appearance hearing or has otherwise exhausted his opportunities before the NDRB, the Applicant may petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR), 2 Navy Annex, Washington, DC 20370-5100 for further review.

Service Benefits:  The Veterans Administration determines eligibility for post-service benefits, not the Naval Discharge Review Board.  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 Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment or educational opportunities.  Regulations limit the Board’s review to a determination of the propriety and equity of the discharge.

Reenlistment/RE-code:  Since the NDRB has no jurisdiction over reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Navy, Marine Corps, or any other of the Armed Forces, the NDRB is not authorized to change a reenlistment code.  Only the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) can make changes to reenlistment codes.  Additionally, the Board 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 subsequently is processed for an administrative involuntary separation or is referred to a court martial for misconduct, the disability evaluation is suspended.  The Physical Evaluation Board case remains in suspense 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.

Automatic Upgrades - There is no law or regulation, which provides that an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving Naval service.  The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge 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.  Examples of documentation that may be provided to the Board include proof of educational pursuits, verifiable employment records, documentation of community service, credible evidence of a substance free lifestyle and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities.

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 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