Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00017
Original file (ND01-00017.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-FA, USNR
Docket No. ND01-00017

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 001010, requested that the reason for the discharge be changed in column #27 & #28. 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 010313. 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: HONORABLE/ MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630605.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues (verbatim)

1. While I was still in the Navy I had started using marijuana. I had used it only a couple times before I had myself in trouble for doing so. I was a hard worker - I did the best job I could, never actually get high while I was working. I did know that there was 0% tolerance but when I got into trouble, was hoping that maybe the hard work that I had accomplished, might have compensated for what I had done - w/a little luck from God: I guess it did in a way, I received an honorable discharge. On my discharge papers it says misconduct/RE-4. I know that that is supposed to be there but would like to ask to have it removed for future employment. I have been to drug rehabilitation since then and presently turning my life around for the good. I am not married but I dud have a 2 year old daughter, with whom I'm in contact with. I would like to apologize to whom it may concern and the Navy for my past actions. I have since learned from that experience and knew it had to be that way. I have also wanted to go to college and have been unable to do so. The reason I was discharged (misconduct/RE-4) has been keeping me from activating and using my Montgomery GI Bill, which I would like to utilize if I could. Please consider my application. Thank you,

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
Copy of DD Form 214
Letter from Department of Veterans Affairs re: 45-day rehabilitation program from August 3, 2000 to September 18, 2000

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: 940722               Date of Discharge: 970227

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 02 03 13
         Inactive: 00 03 22

 Age at Entry: 18                          Years Contracted: 8

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 47

 Highest Rate: FN

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 2.50 (2)    Behavior: 3.00 (2)                OTA: 2.84

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM, SASM, SSDR, MUC

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

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

HONORABLE/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630605.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

940722:  Waiver approved for DEP discharge from the U.S. Navy (marijuana use on 8Jul94).

 941115:  Applicant to active duty for 3 years.

 961105:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Violate a lawful general regulation, to wit: Chapter 12, subparagraph B, article 12201.2, U.S. Navy Uniform Regulation, dated 19 April 1991, by wrongfully wearing a stud pierced through the tongue from October 1995 to October 1996, violation of UCMJ Article 112A: Wrongfully use hashish, a schedule I controlled substance while on board a vessel used by the armed forces on 15Oct95.
         Award: Forfeiture of $490 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to FA. No indication of appeal in the record.
961109:  Drug and Alcohol Abuse Report: Drug paraphernalia possession, October 19, 1996, less than monthly, shipboard. Commanding officer recommends separate not via VA hospital. Remarks: ...Method of identification: 961019 supervisor referral, LPO found drug paraphernalia in berthing. Applicant admitted paraphernalia was his and self disclosed use of hashish three times while onboard.
961203:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse and misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.
961210:          Applicant advised of his rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge Board.
970121:  An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence and by unanimous vote, found that the applicant had committed a serious offense and drug abuse, that the misconduct warranted separation, and by a vote of 2 to 1 recommended discharge honorable.
970203:  Commanding officer directed discharge honorable by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense. Commanding officer’s comments (verbatim): FA (applicant's) total disregard for good order and discipline is evidenced by his nonjudicial punishment for wearing a tongue stud using hashish aboard a naval vessel. Such misconduct cannot be tolerated. Although I do not concur with the Administrative Board's recommendation for a Honorable discharge, I concur that FA (applicant) must be separated from the naval service. Therefore, I order that FA (applicant) be discharged from the naval service with an Honorable discharge.

970220:  Applicant declined VA treatment.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT
REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 970227 honorable 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 response to the applicant’s issue, the Board finds that the applicant was very fortunate indeed to receive an honorable discharge and could not determine any reason why the applicant’s narrative reason for discharge should be changed. In addition, the Board has no authority to change re-enlistment codes to allow the applicant to obtain better employment or receive Montgomery GI Bill benefits. Relief denied.

 Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 14, effective
03 Oct 96 until 971212, Article 3630605, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL 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 112a, for wrongfully using a controlled substance on board a vessel used by the armed forces, 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 | 2001_Navy | ND01-00571

    Original file (ND01-00571.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Decision A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 010928. 980501: Commander, Naval Base, Norfolk directed the applicant's discharge general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense. 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.

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01165

    Original file (ND99-01165.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 the applicant’s issue 1, the Board determined this issue is without merit. This discharge would have been Honorable. He was properly discharged for commission of a serious offense based on his civilian conviction.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501483

    Original file (ND0501483.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable and the Narrative Reason for Separation be changed to “not able to sign dependence care.” The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant’s DD Form 214 (Member 1) Applicant’s DD Form 214 (Copy 4) PART II - SUMMARY OF...

  • USMC | DRB | 2001_Marine | MD01-00332

    Original file (MD01-00332.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD01-00332 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010123, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. It must be noted that most Marines serve honorably and well and therefore earn honorable discharges. While the NDRB respects the fact that the applicant tried, her service is equitably characterized as being performed under other than honorable conditions.

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00065

    Original file (ND99-00065.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board will not grant relief on the basis of these issues.The applicant is reminded that the Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge (D). At this time, the applicant has not provided any documentation of good character and conduct. You should read Enclosure (5) of the Directive before submitting such a complaint.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00917

    Original file (ND00-00917.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 the applicant’s issue 1, the Board found that the applicant’s misconduct consisting of a civilian conviction of Driving Under the Influence and hit and run with serious injury to a 10 year old boy outweighed the positive aspects of Naval service and therefore were deserving of a characterization under other than...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00591

    Original file (ND02-00591.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00591 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020326, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable or general/under honorable conditions. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION Issue 2: Normally, to permit relief, an error or injustice must have existed during the period of enlistment in question.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00537

    Original file (ND04-00537.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions). 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 more thorough understanding of the Applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review. There is no requirement or law that grants recharacterization...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01374

    Original file (ND03-01374.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. NOT REQUIRED FOR COSO] 990926: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense and misconduct due to drug abuse.990926: Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult, elected to waive all rights except the right to...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00053

    Original file (ND02-00053.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Job reference dated September 20, 2001 Copy of police record check Copy of applicant's DD Form 214 Applicant's microfiche service record PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: None Inactive: USNR (DEP) 950309 - 950913 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 950914 Date of Discharge:...