Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00210
Original file (ND01-00210.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-STGSN, USN
Docket No. ND01-00210

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 001211, 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 010615. 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 1910-146, formerly Article 3630620.
PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

 1. I failed to submit a special request chit to travel to Mexico. I traveled to Mexico so often that I found it difficult to submit a request. I never planned in advance to go to Mexico. I realize that I didn't follow Navy procedures, but at that time I did not realize the severity of the consequences.

2. In hindsight, I realize that I should have reported R____ for his use of anabolic steroids. During the time of the investigation I was under emotional strain and peer pressure. I was acting as a loyal friend and I was worried about my Naval career as well as R____.

3. In my initial statement I told the truth, that I used steroids. After I left the investigator's office, I spoke with STGSR R____ and he told me that he covered for me, that he would take the blame, I then went back to the investigator's office and told them I never took steroids, which I was trying to help STGSR R____ by taking some of the blame. I was trying to do anything possible to not get myself discharged from the Navy.

4. I used anabolic steroids solely for body building purposes, I did not use them to get "high" or to get a "buzz". I wanted to be in a better physical shape to perform better during my physical fitness tests. Anabolic steroids did not affect my performance as a student. I maintained good grades in all of my classes.

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
State of Connecticut Police Record Request
Letter from Applicant
Reference Letters (3)
Letter from Former Pastor
Employment Reference Letter
Reference Letter from Veterans Case Manager
Copy of DD Form 214
Letter from Veterans Case Manager

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: USN                        None
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     981112 - 990106  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 990107               Date of Discharge: 000323

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 01 02 17
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 19                          Years Contracted: 4 (24 months extension)

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 58

 Highest Rate: STGSN

 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):

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-146, formerly 3630620.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

000308:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: (2 Specifications), Spec 1: Disobey a lawful order to wit: FLEASWTRACENINST 1520.1J, of 990309, going to Tijuana B.C. Mexico without submitting a special request chit, Spec 2: Disobey a lawful order, Para 1137 U.S .Navy Regulation by wrongfully reporting STGSR R____ using steroids, violation of UCMJ Article 107: Make a false statement that he never purchased or used steroids, violation of UCMJ Article 112a: Wrongfully use anabolic steroids, on Dec 99.
Award: Forfeiture of $585.00 per month for 2 months, restriction to FLEASWTRACEN for 45 days, extra duty for 45 days, reduction to E-3. No indication of appeal in the record.
000309:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under Other Than Honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to Drug abuse and misconduct due to Commission of a serious offense.
000309:          Applicant advised of his 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.
000314:  Commanding Officer, Fleet Anti-Submarine Warfare Training Center recommended discharge under Other Than Honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to Drug abuse and misconduct Commission of a serious offense. Commanding officer’s comments: [(verbatim), if appropriate]:

000316:  Chief of Naval Education and training authorized 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 000323 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).

Issue 1. The applicant states, he failed to submit a special request chit to go to Mexico, realized he didn’t follow Navy procedures, but did not realize the severity of the consequences. The Board determined, by the applicant’s own admission, he did not follow existing Navy directives, when going to Mexico. However, this is not a decisional issue and requires no further comment. Relief denied.

Issue 2. The applicant states he realizes he should have reported his friend for using steroids. He was acting as a loyal friend and was worried about his Naval career as well as his friend’s. The Board determined this is not a decisional issue and requires no further comment. Relief denied.

Issue 3 and 4. The applicant states in his initial statement he told the truth that he used steroids and was trying to do anything possible to be discharged from the Navy. He also stated he used steroids for body building purposes. The Board determined, based on the applicant’s admittance to using steroids, his discharge was proper and equitable. Relief denied.

The following is provided for the benefit of the applicant. Normally, to permit relief, an error or injustice must have existed during the period of enlistment in question. No such error or injustice occurred during the applicant’s enlistment. Additionally, 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 civilian life, subsequent to leaving the service. 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. Verifiable proof of any post-service accomplishments must be provided in order for the applicant to claim post-service conduct and behavior as a reason to upgrade a less than Honorable discharge. E vidence of continuing educational pursuits, an employment record, documentation of community service, certification of non-involvement with civil authorities and proof of his not using drugs, are examples of verifiable documents that should have been provided to receive consideration for clemency, based on post-service conduct. The applicant did not provide sufficient documentation to warrant an upgrade to his discharge. He 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. The applicant can provide additional documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments at that time. Legal representation at a personal appearance hearing is highly recommended but not required.
Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A . The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 24, effective 20 May 99 until 26 March 2000, Article 1910-146 (formerly 3630620), Separation by Reason of Misconduct - 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 | 2004_Navy | ND04-00270

    Original file (ND04-00270.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND04-00270 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20031204. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable and the reason for the discharge be changed to “completion of required active service.” The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review. Specification 5: Wrongfully possess illegal substances on 020825, to wit: approximately 5 grams of anabolic steroid material, liquid...

  • USMC | DRB | 2000_Marine | MD00-00211

    Original file (MD00-00211.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 the applicant’s issue 1, the Board determined this issue is without merit. The applicant was discharged for possession of an illegal drug, and not use. The applicant states he is attending Community College and has never been in jail or arrested before or after the Marine Corps.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00528

    Original file (ND04-00528.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    as well as I did not know the illegality of the offense until brought to my attention by the authorities. A single discreditable incident with military or civilian authorities may form the basis for determining the character of a member’s service. The NDRB is authorized, however, to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant’s performance and conduct during the period...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500458

    Original file (ND0500458.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge changed to general/under honorable conditions. He reports using cannabis and cocaine 2 times since enlistment 8 months ago. A request for a waiver can be submitted during the processing of a formal application for reenlistment through a recruiter.

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01006

    Original file (ND99-01006.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 950106 under Other Than Honorable conditions for misconduct due to Drug abuse (Use) (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 the applicant’s issue 1, the Board determined this issue is without merit. The NDRB reviews the propriety (did the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01219

    Original file (ND03-01219.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. As the representative, we ask that consideration be given to equitable relief, as this is a matter that involves a determination whether a discharge should be changed under the equity standards, to include any issue upon which the Applicant submits to the Board’s discretionary authority, under SECNAVIST 5420.174C. There is no requirement or law that grants recharacterization...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00136

    Original file (ND00-00136.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT ex-STGSR, USN Docket No. ND00-00136 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 991102, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00776

    Original file (ND01-00776.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Decision A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 011214. 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. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00874

    Original file (ND03-00874.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. In the absence of a discharge package, the Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (B) and, after a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, found that the discharge was proper and equitable (C and D).The Applicant introduced no decisional issues for consideration by the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-01004

    Original file (ND00-01004.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND00-01004 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 000830, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. 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 two issues requested an upgrade based on his post service...