Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00683
Original file (ND00-00683.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-SR, USN
Docket No. ND00-00683

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 000508, 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 001206. 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: UNCHARACTERIZED (ENTRY LEVEL SEPARATION)/ERRONEOUS ENTRY - DRUG ABUSE, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-130 (formerly 3620280).

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues (verbatim)

 1. I wish to re-enlist in the U.S.N. because it has a vast amount of benefits to both the Navy and myself. Some of the opportunities that I perceive to be desirable benefits are educational, discipline regiment, conformity, and self actualization. A few more aspects of the Navy that I find attractive are the opportunities to be introduced and in turn interact and work with motivated, goal oriented individuals. Secondly, the opportunity to travel around the world if possible and make lifelong friends if possible. In close, I sincerely believe that these great benefits and opportunites provide me with the inspiration, motivation, and dedication to serve our great country proud to my uptmost efforts and capabilities.

 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)     990610 - 990617  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 990618               Date of Discharge: 990707

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 00 00 20
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 19                          Years Contracted: 4

Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 74

 Highest Rate: SR

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: NOB                  Behavior: NOB             OTA: NOB

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: None

Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

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

UNCHARACTERIZED (ENTRY LEVEL SEPARATION)/ERRONEOUS ENTRY - DRUG ABUSE, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-130 (formerly 3620280).

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :
990628:  NAVDRUGLAB GREAT LAKES, IL urinalysis report indicates applicant tested positive for THC.

990630:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with uncharacterized service by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to erroneous enlistment as evidenced by a confirmed positive entrance urinalysis for marijuana.
990630:  Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights.

990701:  Commanding officer directed discharge with uncharacterized service by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to erroneous enlistment as evidenced by a confirmed positive entrance urinalysis test result for marijuana.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 990707 with an entry level separation (uncharacterized) for defective enlistment and induction due to erroneous enlistment - drug abuse(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 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. Neither a less than fully honorable discharge nor an unfavorable “RE” code is, in itself, a bar to re-enlistment. A request for waiver is normally done only during the processing of a formal application for enlistment. No relief will be granted based on this issue.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A. The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 18, effective 12 Dec 97 until PRESENT, Article 1910-130 (formerly 3620280), Separation by Reason of Defective Enlistments and Inductions - Erroneous Enlistment.

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 | 2000_Navy | ND00-00645

    Original file (ND00-00645.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 990701 with an entry level separation (uncharacterized) due to erroneous enlistment - drug abuse(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).In response to the applicant’s issue, the Board found no reason to change the applicant’s discharge. ...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00756

    Original file (ND01-00756.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I think my discharge should be changed on the fact that I was young and irresponsible. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 000208 with an Entry level separation (Uncharacterized) for defective enlistment and induction due to erroneous enlistment - alcohol abuse (A). 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-01128

    Original file (ND01-01128.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    001114: Applicant advised of her rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights except the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation.001116: CO, RTC, Great Lakes directed the applicant's entry level separation (uncharacterized) by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to erroneous enlistment as evidenced by a confirmed positive urinalysis for amphetamine and...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00386

    Original file (ND01-00386.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Respectfully yours, Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214 DD Form 149 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: None Inactive: USNR (DEP) 000329 - 000411 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 000412 Date of Discharge: 000503 Length of Service (years, months, days):Active: 00 00 22 Inactive: None I...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00827

    Original file (ND01-00827.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00827 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010530, 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:Copy of DD Form 214 Letter from Applicant PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: USN None Inactive: USNR (DEP) 981221 -...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00846

    Original file (ND00-00846.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND00-00846 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 000622, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 980203 with an uncharacterized service for defective enlistment and induction due to erroneous enlistment (A). Even though the applicant may have received a waiver for his ankle, the fact remains that the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00199

    Original file (ND02-00199.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00199 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020107, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 001016 with an entry level separation (uncharacterized) for defective enlistment and induction due to erroneous enlistment - drug abuse (A). The applicant is reminded that he remains eligible for a personal...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00725

    Original file (ND01-00725.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00725 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010430, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable and reason for discharge be changed to RE-1. In support of my request for an upgrade in my discharge, please not the attached medical narrative from Dr. H____ and the results of the examination from St. Luke's. Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :990420: Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01368

    Original file (ND03-01368.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-01368 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030815. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. The Commanding Officer recommended separation by reason of fraudulent enlistment and convenience of the government due to a diagnosed personality disorder.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00048

    Original file (ND02-00048.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 000104 with an entry level separation (uncharacterized) for defective enlistment and induction due to erroneous enlistment - drug abuse (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...