Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00151
Original file (ND00-00151.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-SR, USN
Docket No. ND00-00151

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 991109, 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 000727. 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 1910 - 142 (formerly 3630605).

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

1. In addition to all information available I had became involved with drugs while serving in the USN which was a result of me committing such an act that got me an other than honorable discharge. As of today I still use drugs. This upgrade is one of the many steps to better my life. I wish to be eligable for the VA detox drug program and in order for this to occur my discharge need to be upgraded. My substance abuse started while I was serving in the USN and that is why my discharge should be upgraded.

 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: USAF              920721 - 920728  Drugs
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     970117 - 970409  ELS
 USNR (DEP)      980107 - 980125  COG
Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 980126               Date of Discharge: 980824

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 00 06 29
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 23                          Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 11                        AFQT: 63

 Highest Rate: SR

 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: None

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-142 (formerly 3630605).

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

980623:  Applicant to unauthorized absence 0700, 23Jun98.

 980625:  Applicant from unauthorized absence 0621, 25Jun98 (1 day/surrendered).
980720:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (2 specs): Absence without leave, violation of UCMJ, Article 121: Larceny, to wit: steal retail merchandise of a value in excess of $184, the property of the Navy Exchange on 15 July 1998.
         Award: Forfeiture of $463.05 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days. No indication of appeal in the record.
980720:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under Other Than Honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the Commission of a serious offense.
980720:          Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ, Article 27B, elected to waive all rights.
980720:  Commanding officer recommended discharge under Other Than Honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the Commission of a serious offense.

980803:  Commander, Naval Surface Force, U.S. Atlantic Fleet directed the applicant's discharge under Other Than Honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the Commission of a serious offense.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 980824 under Other Than Honorable conditions for misconduct due to Commission of a serious offense (A and B). The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (C). 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 (D and E).

In the applicant’s issue 1, the Board determined this issue is without merit. The applicant states his substance abuse started while in the Navy and this is why his discharge should be upgraded. The applicant was not discharged for drug abuse. The only documentation provided, that shows he used illegal drugs, is during his military service in the Air Force. He was discharged for Commission of a serious offense (Larceny). The applicant was not identified as a drug abuser, while serving in the Navy, therefore, the Navy is not responsible for providing rehabilitation treatment. The applicant should contact a civilian rehabilitation center for treatment of his existing problem. Relief denied.

 Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)
A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 18, effective
12 Dec 97 until Present, Article 1910-142 [formerly 3630605]. SEPARATION BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT- COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE .

B. In Appendix 12 of the Manual for Courts-Martial, a punitive discharge is authorized for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 121, Larceny of property valued over $100, if adjudged at a Special or General Court Martial

C. 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.

D. 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.

E. 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 view DoD Directive 1332.28 and other Decisional Documents by going online at " afls14.jag.af.mil ".

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
                  720 Kennon Street SE Rm 309
                  Washington Navy Yard DC 20374-5023      




Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00516

    Original file (ND99-00516.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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: None Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 960813 Date of Discharge: 980720 Length of Service (years, months, days):Active: 01 11 08 Inactive: None After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00412

    Original file (ND99-00412.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MMFN (applicant) has no potential for further service. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 980423 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A). Although the Board respects and appreciates the applicant’s over four years of service, the seriousness of the above offense is such that the Board found the characterization of the applicant’s discharge as Other Than Honorable...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-01194

    Original file (ND01-01194.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-01194 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010920, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. The applicant described the circumstances surrounding discharge and requested a change based on his post service conduct. However, the NDRB is authorized to consider outstanding post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge, to the extent that such matters provide a basis for a...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01448

    Original file (ND03-01448.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable or entry-level separation or uncharacterized and the reason for the discharge be changed to “convenience of the government.” The Applicant requests a personal appearance hearing before the board in the Washington National Capital Region. In the acknowledgement letter, the Applicant was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01216

    Original file (ND02-01216.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Character reference, dated August 12, 2002 Applicant's DD Form 214 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: USNR (DEP) 970729 - 970812 COG Active: None Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 970813 Date of Discharge: 990702 Length of Service (years, months, days):Active: 01 10...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00347

    Original file (ND03-00347.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-00347 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20021223. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Three pages from Applicant’s service record Applicant’s DD Form 214 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00360

    Original file (ND01-00360.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00360 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010202, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable or general/under honorable conditions. 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 Two pages from applicant's service record PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01225

    Original file (ND02-01225.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-01225 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020828, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. Award: Restriction for 60 days, reduction to AR. The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of discharge.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00710

    Original file (ND01-00710.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Decision A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 011127. 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: “My discharge was improper because I honestly am not a thief and I believe that if I was given another chance I would have better represented myself. The applicant did not provide any documentation to...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00774

    Original file (ND00-00774.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 (D and E).In response to applicant’s issue 1, the Board found that alcohol/drug dependency is not an issue. In response to applicant’s issue 2, the Board has no authority to change re-enlistment codes or make recommendations to permit re-entry into the Naval Service or any other of the Armed Forces. There was nothing in the...