Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00599
Original file (ND99-00599.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-SKSR USN
Docket No. ND99-00599

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 990329, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to Honorable. The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. The applicant did not list any representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 000121. 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.





PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues (verbatim)

 1. “My discharge was improper because I only served 7 months in the service. I do not think I should have an Other than Honorable discharge hanging over my head the rest of my life because I gave the military a try and things didn’t work out.”

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
Copy of DD Form 214

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: USN                        None
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     960912 - 961204  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 961205               Date of Discharge: 970703

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 00 06 29
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 18                          Years Contracted: 4

Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 50

 Highest Rate: SKSR

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: NMF                  Behavior: NMF             OTA: NMF

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: None

Days of Unauthorized Absence: 18

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 :

970314:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Failure to obey a written regulation, violation of UCMJ Article 86: UA from appointed place of duty.
         Award: Restriction and extra duty for 15 days. No indication of appeal in the record.
970610:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: UA from 970415-970503 (18 days), violation of UCMJ Article 87: Missing movement on 97APR28 and 97MAY03, violation of UCMJ Article 112A: Wrongful use of marijuana on 97MAY03.
Award: Forfeiture of $450 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days. No indication of appeal in the record.
970612:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under Other Than Honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to Drug abuse (Use) and misconduct due to Commission of a Serious Offense as evidenced by his service record.
970612:          Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ, Article 27B, elected to waive all rights.
970621:  Commanding officer, USS GEORGE WASHINGTON (CVN 73), recommended discharge under Other Than Honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to Drug abuse (Use) and misconduct due to Commission of a Serious offense, as evidenced by his service record.

970627:  Commander, GEORGE WASHINGTON Battle Group directed the applicant's discharge under Other Than Honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to Drug abuse (Use).

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 970703 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 states his discharge was improper because he only served 7 months and should not have an OTH discharge hanging over his head the rest of his life. The consequences of a less than Honorable discharge can be, and have been, overcome by many applicants. However, 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 provided any documentation of post-service 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. Relief denied.






 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 | 2000_Navy | ND00-00037

    Original file (ND00-00037.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    970228: 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 by a vote of 2 to 1 recommended to retention. 970612: Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) approved applicant's discharge general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse (use). I don't wish to continue paying for...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00308

    Original file (ND00-00308.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION In response to the applicant’s second issue, the applicant has provided no documentation of good character and conduct for the Board to consider a recharacterization based on his post-service conduct, therefore relief is denied. The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 18, effective 12 Dec 97 to 19 May 99, Article 1910-146 (formerly 3630620), Separation by Reason of Misconduct - Drug Abuse.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00903

    Original file (ND04-00903.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. The Applicant requests a documentary record review. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the Applicant’s service was discovered by the NDRB.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00619

    Original file (ND03-00619.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. I received a Under other than Honorable Conditions Discharge and request that my discharge be upgraded to Honorable based on the following: 941026: BUPERS directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00005

    Original file (ND02-00005.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00005 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010926, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. The Board reviewed the applicant’s service record and, although the discharge package is missing, noted the applicant had at least three NJP’s in his enlistment in addition to drug abuse. Heis reminded that he remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00303

    Original file (ND00-00303.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT ex-OSSA, USNR Docket No. ND00-00303 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 000105, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Applicant requested board review evidence submitted with original...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00268

    Original file (ND01-00268.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Statement from applicant Copy of DD Form 214 Appointment of Veterans Service Organization as claimant's representative PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: None Inactive: USNR (DEP) 870409 - 870415 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 870416 Date of Discharge: 890725 Length of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00630

    Original file (ND03-00630.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Decision A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20040128. Award: Forfeiture of ½ months pay for 2 months, restriction for 60 days, reduction to SR. No indication of appeal in the record.000922: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.000922: Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00161

    Original file (ND00-00161.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 990125 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to drug abuse (use) (A). 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 introduced no decisional issues for consideration by the Board. PART IV - INFORMATION FOR THE APPLICANT If...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00560

    Original file (ND99-00560.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION There is no indication that the applicant turned himself in to the proper command representative or to a medical facility to qualify for self-referral amnesty. 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...