DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

TRG
Docket No: 8309-06
19 February 2008

 

: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
To: Secretary of the Navy

 

 

Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF

Ref: (a) Title 10 U.S.C. 1552
Encl: (1) Case Summary

(2) Subject's naval record
Lt, Pursuant to the provisions of reference (4), Petitioner, 4
former enlisted member in the Navy, filed an application with
this Board requesting a hetter characterization of service than

 

the discharge under cther than honorable conditions issued on

& July 1988,

2... The Board, consisting of Mr. 77 Mr — gp od Mr.

f reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on
5 February 2008 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that
the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the
available evidence of record. Documentary material considered by
the Board consisted of the enclosures, naval records, and

applicable statutes, regulations and policies.

3. The Board, having reviewed all the facts of record pertaining
to Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice, finds as

follows:

a. Before applying to this Board, Petitioner exhausted all
administrative remedies available under existing law and
regulations within the Department of the Navy.

b. Although it appears that Petitioner's application was
not filed in a timely manner, it is in the interest of justice to
waive the statute of limitations and consider the application on

its merits.

c. Petitioner enlisted in the Navy for four years on 20
November 1984 at age 18. He successfully completed initial
training and on 13 May 1985 reported to the Naval Regional Dental
Center, Branch Clinic, Panama City, Florida. He then served
without incident until 15 April 1987. On that date, he received

nonjudicial punishment (NUP) for wrongful use of marijuana. The
punishment imposed included restriction, extra duty and a
reduction to pay grade E-2. At that time, he was counseled and
warned that future drug abuse could lead to discharge under other

than honorable conditions (OTH). On 23 February 1988, he
received another NUP for use of a controlled substance. The
punishment imposed included restriction, extra duty and he was

again reduced to pay grade E-2.

 

dad. Based on the foregoing record, Petitioner was
transferred with temporary additional duty (TAD) orders to the
Naval Costal Systems Center (NAVCOASTSYSCEN) for discharge
processing. On 29 February 1988 he was notified of separation
processing by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse. An
administrative discharge board (ADB) met on 18 March 1988 and
unanimously concluded that he had committed misconduct due to
drug abuse but recommended a general discharge. On 25 April 1988
the commanding officer also recommended a general discharge
pointing out that Petitioner had been assigned TAD to
NAVCOASTSYSCEN. On 3 June 1988, the Navy Military Personnel
Command (NMPC) denied the recommendation for discharge because
NAVCOASTSYSCEN had no jurisdiction to process Petitioner for

discharae because he was TAD to that command

 

 

e. Further discharge processing documentation is not tiled
in Petitioner's naval record. However, he was apparently again
processed for discharge by his parent command, the Branch Dental
Clinic, Panama City Florida. The DD Form 214 issued by the
Branch Clinic shows that on 8 July 1988 he was issued an OTH
discharge by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.

f. Attached to enclosure (1) is an advisory opinion from
NMPC which sets forth the rationale for not allowing individual
to be processed for separation by a TAD command. The advisory

opinion concludes, in part, as follows:

...The record fails to provide. any further
documentation leading up to the 8 Jul 1988, DD 214
which reflects an...OTH discharge with SPD (Separation
Program Designator) HKK, which means an administrative
discharge board was waived. It can be speculated that
respondent possibly committed further misconduct, was
reprocessed by his parent command, waived another
board, and PERS-83 issued a new discharge authority for
OTH. Also, some other possibilities may come to mind.
However, due to administrative error, either by the
commander or PERS-83, there is no proof to support any
such hypothesis. Therefore, it is recommended that
favorable action on this petition be granted to upgrade
the characterization of service to General (Under
Honorable Conditions).
CONCLUSION:

Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record and
especially the recommendation contained in the advisory opinion
the Board concludes that Petitioner's request warrants favorable
action. It is clear that Petitioner presented his case to an ADB
and was recommended for a general discharge, which recommendation
was overturned on a technicality. This action apparently
resulted in reprocessing by his parent command anda
recommendation for an OTH discharge. Given the circumstances,
the Board agrees with the recommendation contained in the
advisory opinion that a general discharge as initially
recommended is now appropriate in this case.

The Board further concludes that this Report of Proceedings
shoul Kel be filed in Petitioner's metre record so that all future
: understand the reasons for the recharacterizarionr

of the discharge.

VoL Wa

i) TAP OyRA RA CORTES TET ent |
RECOMMEND AT TOW -

a. That Petitioner's naval record be corrected to show that on &

July 1988 he was issued a general discharge by reason of
misconduct due to drug abuse vice the discharge under other than
honorable conditions on that date now of record.

b. That this Report of Proceedings be filed in Petitioner's
naval record.

c. That the Department of Veterans Affairs be informed upon
request that Petitioner's application was received by the Board

on 15 September 2006.

4. It is certified that a quorum was present at the Board's
review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and
complete record of the Board's proceedings in the above entitled

matter.

ROBERT D. ZSALMAN Crstoen ty ame GEORGE
Recorder Acting Recorder

5. Pursuant to the delegation of authority set out in Section
6(e) of the revised Procedures of the Board for Correction of
Naval Records (32 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 723.6(e))
and having assured compliance with its provisions, it is hereby
announced that the foregoing corrective action, taken under the
authority of reference (a), has been approved by the Board on
behalf of the Secretary of the Navy.

a ES a

Fe2w. DEAN FFER
Executive Director