Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00556
Original file (ND00-00556.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-EMFA, USN
Docket No. ND00-00556

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 000331, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable or general/under honorable conditions. 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 001005. 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 (verbatim)

1. I (applicant) was released from military service with an other than honorable due to drug test.
Reason for drug test was I wanted out of service. On account of the death of fiancé and 18-month year old daughter. Due to a drunk driver. I reenlisted for schools. While in San Diego my parents contacted me about my loss. For my situation I was not thinking straight due to stress and heart ache. It has been 14 yrs now and my life is going fine
So I am requesting for paper work I need so that I can apply for a better job. And to better my self and new family. The job I am applying for is a state job correction officer. Sincerely yours

 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                        840327 - 880210  HON
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     840223 - 840326  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 880211               Date of Discharge: 880616

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 00 04 06
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 24                          Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 34

 Highest Rate: EM3

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 4.00 (1)    Behavior: 2.90 (2)                OTA: 3.80

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: SSDR

Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

 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 :

880407:  NAVDRUGLAB, Great Lakes, IL reports applicant urine sample received 880401 tested positive for cocaine.
880505:  Medical evaluation for drug abuse found the applicant to be a drug abuser, not drug dependent. Recommended separate from service not via VA hospital.

880510:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 112A: Wrongfully used a controlled substance, cocaine on 21Mar88.
         Award: Forfeiture of $376 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to EMFA. No indication of appeal in the record.
880519:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse as evidenced by your wrongful use of cocaine.
880519:          Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights.
880523:  Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse (use).

880611:  CNMPC 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 880616 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 that the applicant was in his second enlistment for 2 months when he tested positive during a urinalysis for cocaine. In the applicant’s issue 1, the applicant states that both his fiancée and daughter died during this timeframe, although he provides no documentation to support this claim. Regardless, the applicant is accountable for his actions. The record is devoid of evidence that the applicant was not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions. Therefore, n o relief will be granted based on this issue.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A. Navy Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560A), effective 15 Jun 87 until
10 Jan 89, 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 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 | 2003_Navy | ND03-00090

    Original file (ND03-00090.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-00090 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 20021016, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. Decision A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20030912. Soon after that I was promptly with an “Other than Honorable” discharge indicating the reason as Drug Abuse.The events leading to my discharge require more of an explanation and I would like to take this...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00251

    Original file (ND02-00251.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: USN None Inactive: USNR (DEP) 910221 - 910530 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 910531 Date of Discharge: 930222 Length of Service (years, months, days):Active: 01 08 22 Inactive: None CA action 930122: Sentence approved and ordered...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00717

    Original file (ND00-00717.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Recorder at the Admin Board advised members of the Board they could not find the member possessed exceptional potential because evidence does not show he is a 4.0 Sailor. Relief is denied.The applicant’s second issue states: “I wasn’t completely aware of my legal rights.” The NDRB found that the applicant was afforded his rights according to regulations and was, in fact, represented by qualified counsel. The Recorder at the Admin Board advised members of the Board they could not find...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00420

    Original file (ND99-00420.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    and document #14 through #18). I do not deny the findings as recorded at my Administrative Discharge Board (please refer to Document #1 paragraph 1.e.).2. At this time the applicant has not provided sufficient documentation of good character and conduct.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00225

    Original file (ND00-00225.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND00-00225 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 991203, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. 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 had 2 NJPs, one of which was a wrongful use of a controlled substance. The...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00298

    Original file (ND01-00298.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 the applicant’s issue, the Board found that the applicant's age, education level, and test scores qualified him for enlistment. At this time, the applicant has not provided any documentation of good character and conduct. Navy Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560A), Change 6, effective 11 Jan 89 until 13 Jun 90,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01247

    Original file (ND02-01247.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I even found the person I love the most in the world, my wife. At every job I've had since the Navy I've had to take drug tests. The Applicant is reminded that he remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of his discharge.

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01200

    Original file (ND99-01200.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND99-01200 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 990913, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214 Letter confirming completion of Alcohol and Drug Recovery Program dated August 30, 1999 Character reference letter from St. Andrew's...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00412

    Original file (ND00-00412.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND00-00412 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 000210, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. I ask please grant me this upgrade so that I can get a good job and take care of my family. At this time, the applicant has not provided any documentation of good character and conduct.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-01072

    Original file (ND00-01072.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    My discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident in 67 months of outstanding performance of service, as my enlisted service record indicate. 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 his “discharge is inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident.” The Board found that the applicant...