Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00639
Original file (ND99-00639.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-JON, USN
Docket No. ND99-00639

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 990407, 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 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 – Drug abuse (Use), authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630620.


PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues
1.       Reconsideration of recommendation from JAG Officer.
2.       My other than honorable discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident in 46 months with no other adverse action.
3.       Please reconsider my character of discharge so I may continue my education with the Montgomery GI Bill and possibly join a Guard or Reserve Unit.
Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
Copy of DD Form 214
          Notice of an Administrative Brd. Procedure proposed action
         Administrative Brd. Proceedings
         Request for Clemency
         Letter of Deficiency
         Written statement on my own behalf
         Characterization Statements
         Aftercare Treatment

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: USN                        NONE
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     880616 - 880808  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 880808                        Date of Discharge: 920703

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 03 10 26
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 24                          Years Contracted: 4

Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 71

 Highest Rate: JO3

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.84 (5)    Behavior: 3.84 (5)                OTA: 3.84 (4.0 scale)

 Military Decorations: NAM

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM, SSDR, SASM(W/ bronze star)

Days of Unauthorized Absence: 05

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Misconduct – Drug abuse (Use), authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630620.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :
920129:  Applicant UA from USS NIMITZ.

920202:  Applicant surrendered.

920224:  NAVDRUGLAB report: applicant positive for cocaine.

 920225:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: UA from NIMITZ from 0700, 92Jan29 to 1500, 92 Feb 02, violation of UCMJ Article 112a: wrongfully used cocaine on or about 92Feb02.
         Award: Forfeiture of $501 per month for 2 month(s), restriction and extra duty for 60 days, reduction to E-3. No indication of appeal in the record.
920225:  Medical evaluation for drug abuse found the applicant to be a drug abuser, not drug dependent. Recommends Level II or Level III treatment.
920225:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse as evidenced by CO’s NJP on 920225.
920225:          Applicant advised of his rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge Board.
920424:  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 conditions.

920519:  Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse (use).

920616:  BUPERS 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 920703 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).

The Board found nothing in the records, nor did the applicant provide anything to indicate or to show that there exists an error of fact, law, procedure, or discretion, associated with his discharge at the time of issuance, and that his rights were prejudiced thereby. Regarding clemency, the Board noted no evidence or mitigating factors warranting an upgrade of the applicant’s discharge. It is the Board’s opinion that the discharge was equitable in its characterization. Relief is therefore denied.

In the applicant’s second issue, he implies that a permissive doctrine exists whereby one in the military is allowed a “single misdeed”. The Board believes that the applicant is confusing this with the civilian world wherein some offenses are treated with leniency because they are a first time incident on an otherwise clear record. No such leniency exists in the military. The applicant is responsible for his actions and must accept the consequences of his misdeeds. The Board will not grant relief on the basis of this issue.

 Applicant was briefed on Veterans' Educational Assistance Act of 1984 (G.I. Bill). He was specifically briefed that an honorable discharge after completion of 36 months of active duty would be required for entitlement to benefits under the G.I. Bill. DD Form 2366. Furthermore , the Board has no obligation to change the applicant’s discharge in order to allow him to go back to school.

The following is provided for the applicant’s edification. The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge (E). The applicant must be aware that 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 the civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Normally, to permit relief, an error or injustice must have been found to have existed during the period of enlistment in question. Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent that such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review, may be considered by the NDRB. The applicant is reminded that he is eligible for a personal appearance hearing provided the application is received within 15 years from the date of discharge. Representation at personal appearance hearing is highly recommended.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A. Navy Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), effective 15 Aug 91 until 04 Mar 93, Article 3630620, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED MEMBERS BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT DUE TO 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 | ND00-01016

    Original file (ND00-01016.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 states in issue 1 that “ the commanding officer of the USS Nimitz at the time did not hear my case from either myself or my legal officer.” The Board found nothing in the records, nor did the applicant provide anything to indicate or to show that there exists an error of fact, law, procedure, or...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00501

    Original file (ND00-00501.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION No indication of appeal in the record.970730: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse as evidenced by your CO's nonjudicial punishment on 17 July 1997, Article 112A, wrongful use of marijuana.970730: Applicant advised of his rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to appear before an Administrative...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00629

    Original file (ND03-00629.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. In the acknowledgement letter, the Applicant was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing, also advised that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) does not travel, and that all hearings are held in the Washington, D.C. area. Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00061

    Original file (ND00-00061.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).In response to applicant’s issue 1, the Board has no control over re-enlistment bonuses or the applicant’s credit rating. In response to applicant’s issue 2, the Board found that an Honorable discharge after 36 months on active duty is required for entitlements to benefits under the G.I. At this time, the applicant...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00469

    Original file (ND99-00469.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    He stated that he is extremely unhappy with military life and particularly duties with this current command the USS ABRAHAM LINCOLN. After a thorough review of the records, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (C and D).In response to applicant’s issue 1, the applicant implies that a permissive doctrine exists whereby one in the military is allowed an "isolated incident". The applicant

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01074

    Original file (ND99-01074.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I request that the board please review my service records & note that I was given an Honorable Discharge in May of 93. 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: USN 870824 - 930510 RELAD Inactive: USNR (DEP) 861230 - 870823 COG USNR-R 930511 - 941029 HON Period of Service Under Review :Date of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00523

    Original file (ND00-00523.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND00-00523 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 000321, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable or general/under honorable conditions. Relief is not warranted.The applicant’s second issue states: “I am also requesting documents on my ship restriction on the U S Eisenhower.” The NDRB found this issue non decisional. PART IV - INFORMATION FOR THE APPLICANT If you believe that the decision in your case is unclear,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01256

    Original file (ND02-01256.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT ex-SKSN, USN Docket No. Bill that was made available to me at that time. Applicant is being prosecuted by the City of Norfolk, VA on a warrant for possession of cocaine.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500578

    Original file (ND0500578.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND05-00578 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20050217. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge changed to honorable. Bill, and this issue does not serve to provide a foundation upon which the Board can grant relief.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00765

    Original file (ND04-00765.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND04-00765 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20040413. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. No indication of appeal in the record.021008: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.021008: Applicant advised of rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article...