Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00543
Original file (ND01-00543.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-AMSAN, USN
Docket No. ND01-00543

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 010319, 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 010928. 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 (verbatim)

 1. My discharge was inequitable because it was based on one incident in 36 months of service with no other adverse action

2. I feel there should have been a way to receive a second chance with my good record prior to the incident.

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
Copy of Good Conduct Award
Copy of DD Form 214

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: USN                        None
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     970221 - 970226  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 970227               Date of Discharge: 000505

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 03 02 09
         Inactive: 00 00 00

 Age at Entry: 19                          Years Contracted: 8

Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 71

 Highest Rate: AMS3

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.50 (4)    Behavior: 3.00 (4)                OTA: 3.41

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: Meritorious Mast

 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 :

970221   Enlisted in the TAR Enlistment program: 

000216:  NAVDRUGLAB, JACKSONVILLE FL urinalysis report indicates applicant tested positive for Amphetamines.

000218:  NAVDRUGLAB, JACKSONVILLE FL urinalysis report indicates applicant tested positive for Methylenedioxyamphetamines and. Methylenedioxymethamphetamines (ecstacy).
000225:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 112a: Wrongful use of a controlled substance.
         Award: Reduction to E-3. No indication of appeal in the record.

000308:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.
000308:  Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights.
000310:  Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse (use).

000412:  Commander, Navy Region Southeast 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 000505 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).

In response to applicant’s issues 1 and 2, the Board found that the applicant implies that a permissive doctrine exists whereby one in the military is allowed an "isolated incident". The Board believes that the applicant is confusing this with the civilian world wherein some offenses are treated with leniency because they are a first time incident on an otherwise clear record. No such leniency exists in the military. The applicant was aware of the Navy’s ‘zero tolerance’ policy for the use of illegal drugs, and he deliberately violated that policy. The applicant is responsible for his actions and must accept the consequences of his misdeeds. The 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. Evidence 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 any of these documents. 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 27, effective 27 March 2000 - 11 Feb 2001, 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 " afls10.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 | ND01-00379

    Original file (ND01-00379.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT ex-ASAR, USN Docket No. (Equity Issue) This former member requests that the Board include provisions of SECNAVINST 5420.174C, enclosure (1), Chapter 9, as it pertains to post-service conduct, in assessing the merits of this application. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 000406 under other than honorable conditions for...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00165

    Original file (ND03-00165.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-00165 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 20021106, 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 (Member 1) Social Security Card Employment record Letter of recommendation, dated October 14, 2002 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00804

    Original file (ND02-00804.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00804 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020515, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. So finally a week later my mother called me and told me that she just got back home from the hospital with my grandmother. After I was assigned my punishments 90 days restrictions, check-in three times a day, a 1-half of my pay I was separated from the Navy.Since I was out of the military services.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00465

    Original file (ND03-00465.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-00465 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030130. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Once again I thank you and I hope to hear from you.Applicant) (Address deleted) (Home telephone number deleted)” Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:None PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00513

    Original file (ND99-00513.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND99-00513 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 990301, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 980519 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to drug abuse (use) (A). The applicant’s first issue (equity) states the discharge authority did not consider his 33 months...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00980

    Original file (ND02-00980.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    No indication of appeal in the record.000317: Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse (use). Given the Navy’s zero-tolerance drug policy, it is necessary that AOAR C_ (Applicant) be separated with an Other Than Honorable characterization of service as quickly as possible.] After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00949

    Original file (ND01-00949.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Naval Activities, Spain directed the applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse (use). 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. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00614

    Original file (ND99-00614.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND99-00614 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 990331, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. My discharge was based on one isolated incident in 24 months of service with no other adverse action. At this time, the applicant has not provided any documentation of good character and conduct.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00860

    Original file (ND03-00860.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-00860 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030424. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable or general/under honorable conditions. The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00559

    Original file (ND04-00559.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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:Copy of DD Form 214 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: USNR (DEP) 960628 - 961028 COG Active: None Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 961029 Date of Discharge:...