Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00583
Original file (ND99-00583.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-ADAR, USNR
Docket No. ND99-00583

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 990322, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to General/under Honorable conditions. The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. The applicant did not designate a representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 000110. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, NDRB discerned no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the applicant’s service. The Board’s vote was unanimous that the character of the discharge shall not change. The discharge shall remain: UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630620.

The NDRB did note an administrative error on the original DD Form 214. Block 28, Narrative Reason for Separation, should read: “MISCONDUCT” vice “MISCONDUCT - DRUG ABUSE”. The original DD Form 214 should be corrected or reissued as appropriate.





PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues
1. I have realized that I made a careless mistake and that I belong I the Navy or the military. I have taken every action to improve my life. I feel I need to correct my errors and complete duty of serving my country. Therefor I request that my discharge b e upgrade to a level in which I may reenter the military.

2. I would also like to add that I was 19 years of age comitted these errors in lack of judgement and have since taken the steps to educate myself.

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
Copy of DD Form 214 (3 copies)
Discharge from Betty Ford Center for Rehab dated 12-01-98

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: None
         Inactive: None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 961029               Date of Discharge: 971212

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 00 08 06
         Inactive: 00 05 09

 Age at Entry: 18                          Years Contracted: 8

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 68

 Highest Rate: ADAR (E-1)

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 2.0 (1)     Behavior: 1.0 (1)                 OTA: 2.0 (5.0 evals)

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: Marksman M016A1 Ribbon

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

 Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance):

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630620.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

970407:  Commenced 48 months active duty under the TAR Enlistment Program.

 970924:  DAAR: On 19SEP97 applicant was selected for random sampling drug test. Applicant after completing the test, addressed concerns of the test results being positive. The concerns were brought up the chain of command, to the XO, who directed a "command directed" sample on 22SEP97. First test completed by Navy Drug Lab San Diego, CA was positive for Methamphetamine, Second test negative, Second test of original sample positive . SARD screening: No evidence of drug addiction
971205:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 112A: wrongful use of a controlled substance - cocaine and methamphetamine.
         Award: Forfeiture of $450.45 per month for 2 months, restriction for 45 days. No indication of appeal in the record.
971009:  Applicant's voluntary statement concerning his drug usage.

 971014:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under Other Than Honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to Drug abuse as evidenced by the positive findings of Amphetamine/Methamphetamine as a result of a random urinalysis on 19 September 1997.
971023:  CO, Navy Drug Screening Lab, San Diego, CA advised CO, FLTLOGSUPPRON 57 that the technical and admin data associated with the testing of the applicant's specimen was reviewed and found to be technically and administratively complete and accurate.
971205:  Applicant advised of his rights and elected to waive all rights except the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation.
971205:  Commanding officer recommended discharge under Other Than Honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to Drug abuse (Use). Commanding officer’s comments (verbatim): "This command full supports the Navy's zero tolerance drug policy. Recommend an Other Than Honorable discharge at the earliest possible opportunity."

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 971212 under Other Than Honorable conditions for misconduct due to Drug abuse (Use) (A). The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (B). After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (C and D).

In the applicant’s issue 1, the Board determined this issue is without merit. The applicant claims he belongs in the Navy or military and feels the need to correct his errors and complete his duty of serving his country. The NDRB is under no obligation to upgrade an individual’s discharge for the purpose of re-entering the Navy or any other branch of the military. The applicant provided no evidence to show he has improved his life after his military discharge and therefore does not qualify to have his discharge recharacterizated. His discharge was proper and equitable. Relief denied.

In the applicant’s issue 2, the Board determined this issue is without merit. The applicant sites his age at the time of his misconduct and lack of judgement as the reason for his behavioral problems. The applicant’s age, education level and test scores qualified him for enlistment. While he may feel that his immaturity was a factor that contributed to his misconduct, the record clearly reflects his willful disregard for the requirements of military discipline and demonstrated that he was unfit for further service. The applicant’s record contains no evidence that he was not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions. Therefore, relief is denied.

The following is provided for the applicant’s edification. There is no law or regulation that provides for the upgrade of an unfavorable discharge based solely on the passage of time or good conduct, subsequent to leaving military service. The NDRB reviews the propriety (did the Navy follow its own rules in processing the applicant for discharge) and equity (did the applicant receive a discharge characterization in keeping with Navy guidance or was the characterization typical of other service members being separated for the same reason) of each applicant’s discharge to determine if proper procedures were followed. This applicant’s discharge was proper and equitable . Additionally, the NDRB is authorized to award clemency for post-service factors (what has the applicant done since discharge to become a contributing member of his/her community and to society in general). Those factors include but are not limited to the following: Evidence of continuing educational pursuits (transcripts, diploma, degree or vocational-technical certificates), a verifiable employment history (letter of recommendation from employer), documentation of community service (letter from activity/community group), certificate of non-involvement with civil authorities (police records check) and proof of not using drugs (detoxification certificate). The applicant did not provide any documentation of good character or conduct, which would warrant an upgrade to his discharge. The applicant is encouraged to establish a reputation of good character and document his accomplishments. Documentation to support any claim of good character is a must to receive any consideration based on post-service achievements . He remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, to discuss his post-service accomplishments, provided an application is received by the NDRB within fifteen years from the date of his discharge. Legal representation at the hearing is advisable.


 Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A . Navy Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 14, effective
03 Oct 96 until 11 Dec 97, Article 3630620 SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT DRUG ABUSE
B. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 2, AUTHORITY/POLICY FOR DEPARTMENTAL DISCHARGE REVIEW.

C. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 9, paragraph 9.2, PROPRIETY OF THE DISCHARGE.

D. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 9, paragraph 9.3, EQUITY OF THE DISCHARGE.

PART IV - INFORMATION FOR THE APPLICANT
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 Directive 1332.28, you may submit a complaint in accordance with Enclosure (5) of that Directive. You should read Enclosure (5) of the Directive 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 obtain a copy of DoD Directive 1332.28 by writing to:
                  DA Military Review Boards Agency
                  Management Information and Support Directorate
                  Armed Forces Reading Room
                  Washington, D.C. 20310-1809

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:

                  Naval Council of Personnel Boards
                  Attn: Naval Discharge Review Board
                  Washington Navy Yard
                  720 Kennon Street SE Rm 309
                  Washington, D.C. 20374-5023     


Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00808

    Original file (ND04-00808.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. The Applicant contends that he served the United States well and his roommate’s illicit drug use caused the Applicant to test positive for illegal drugs. As of this time, the Applicant has not provided any documentation for the Board to consider.

  • USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-00458

    Original file (MD03-00458.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to entry level separation or uncharacterized. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:None PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: None Inactive: USMCR(J) 970430 - 970721 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 970722 Date of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01361

    Original file (ND03-01361.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. 941208: An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence and by unanimous vote, found that the Applicant had committed misconduct due to drug abuse, that the misconduct warranted separation, and recommended discharge general under honorable conditions. Verifiable proof of any post-service accomplishments must be provided in order for the Applicant...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00559

    Original file (ND00-00559.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214 Notice of appeal of captain's mast and request for discovery of the governmentLetter of deficiency to administrative separation board CO QM2 (applicant), USNAffidavit of M_ R_ H_, Ph.D Statements of character from all immediate supervisors spanning the period of time relevantE-mail correspondence between Capt. 990303: An Administrative...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00677

    Original file (ND01-00677.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00677 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010420, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. Relief based on this issue is not warranted.The applicant’s issue 3 states: “We refer this case to the Board for their careful and compassionate consideration and request the applicant's discharge be reviewed for Clemency due to post service.” The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the re...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00511

    Original file (ND01-00511.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    My discharge was unfair because upon everything I requested I was denied. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (C and D).In the applicant’s issue 1, the Board found that the applicant tested positive for methamphetamines on a 991208 urinalysis. At this time, the applicant has not provided any documentation of good character and conduct.

  • USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-00771

    Original file (MD03-00771.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. I spent the rest of my time in the Marine Corps trying to fight a discharge in order to be able to remain in active duty. 981014: An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence and by unanimous vote, found that the Applicant had committed misconduct due to drug abuse, that the misconduct warranted separation, and recommended discharge general...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00968

    Original file (ND99-00968.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    921208: An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence and by unanimous vote, found that the applicant had committed misconduct due to drug abuse, recommended applicant be retained. 950407: An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence and by unanimous vote, found that the applicant had committed misconduct due to drug abuse, that the misconduct warranted separation, and recommended discharge under other than honorable...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-01038

    Original file (ND00-01038.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (C and D).The applicant’s issue states: “I believe my discharge was inequitable because this was my only offense and I was a good member of the service.” The record shows the applicant was found guilty of use of a controlled substance. Navy Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 5/93, effective 05 Mar 93 until 21...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00670

    Original file (ND03-00670.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-00670 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030227. We refer this case to the Board for their careful and compassionate consideration and request the Applicant's discharge be reviewed for upgrading his discharge to honorable. Issue 2: 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 the service.