Search Decisions

Decision Text

CG | DRB | 2013 - Discharge Review Board (DRB) | 2013 074
Original file (2013 074.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied 
DRB DIGEST/EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
DRB DOCKET 2013-074

 

 

TIS 1 yr, 1 month, 10 days |
Policy Implications _| None |

 

 
 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The applicant was discharged for Misconduct due to Involvement with Drugs. The applicant’s complete
Personnel Data Record and Separation Package were available for the Board to review.

The applicant tested positive during a unit urinalysis for THC in 2012. Pursuant to policy, the command began
processing the former member for separation at that time. The applicant was notified of the intent to discharge,

and the applicant was advised of his rights to an attorney. The applicant was also offered the opportunity to
make a statement.

No defense has been made by the applicant to refute the positive urinalysis result before or after the discharge.
The Board finds no issues with propriety or equity in this case.

Coast Guard policy prescribes no higher than a General, Under Honorable Conditions character of service for

individuals separated as a result of violating the Coast Guard’s drug policy. The Coast Guard has zero tolerance
for drug abuse. The General, Under Honorable Conditions discharge is equitable.

RECOMMENDATION: The Board members thoroughly reviewed the applicant’s record of service and all
available documentation*. The Board deemed that the applicant’s character of service, reason for separation

and reenlistment code are appropriate and should not be changed. The applicant has not substantiated any error
. 5
or inequity.

    
  
    

   

Propriety: Discharge was proper.
Equity: Discharge was equitable.
Final Adjudication by Assistant Commandant For Human Resources: No relief.

4 Record was received from CGPSC-PSD-mr and includes all documentation that was available after a search of
available records in the Coast Guard personnel records system and augmented by Direct Access record data.

In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs unless there is
substantial credible evidence (to include evidence submitted by the Applicant) to rebut the presumption.

Similar Decisions