Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00858
Original file (ND01-00858.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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


ex-ET3, USN
Docket No. ND01-00858

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 010614, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to 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 020110. 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. My discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident in seven years and three months with no other adverse action I served my country for over seven years in on of the most demanding rates in the navy. I made a bad decision one night that cost me my career in the navy. I was currently frocked to ET1 with orders to my first shore duty. I will regret that bad decision for the rest of my life. It is for this reason that I request you review my discharge and upgrade it to reflect the good decisions and the benefits I made for the navy during my service.
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):
         Active: USN                        930414 - 951112  HON
          Inactive: USNR (DEP)     921021 - 930413  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 951113               Date of Discharge: 000808

 Length of Service (years, months, days):
         Active: 04 08 25
          Inactive: None
Age at Entry: 21                          Years Contracted: 6

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 93
Highest Rate: ET2

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):
Performance: 3.00 (5)    Behavior: 3.00 (5)                OTA: 3.17 (5.0 Evals)

 Military Decorations: None
Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM, NMCEM, ACM, GCA(2 ND ), NAVY"E"RIBBON (4 th ), SSDR, MUC, ESWI

 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 :

951113:  Reenlisted onboard USS HYMAN G RICKOVER (SSN-709) for 6 years.
960821:  Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (On 09 August, 1996 you reported to work in a condition brought about due to off-duty activities involving the consumption of alcohol that rendered you unable to perform divisional duties. You have been briefed on the Navy's policy concerning alcohol. Your performance and attitude concerning qualification programs established by the command are UNSAT. You have received a written upgrade and continue to fail to meet your qualification goals), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

961113:  Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (Your intention to detail and poor supervision of a junior technician during conduct of Reactor Control Division Maintenance had serious consequences for reactor safety. Your poor maintenance practices are directly contrary to the basic principles which govern the conduct of the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program. You required nearly continuous supervision in the conduct of your duties. Recently, your leading petty officer discovered you sleeping during field day), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

000715:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 112A: Wrongful use of methamphetamine a controlled substance.
         Award: Forfeiture of $778.00 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to E-4. No indication of appeal in the record.
000715:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.
000715:  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.
000718:  Commander Submarine Group 7 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 000808 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 implies that a permissive doctrine exists whereby one in the military is allowed a “single misdeed”. 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 used illegal drugs. Drug abuse warranted processing for separation, normally under other than honorable conditions. His performance prior to the drug abuse doesn’t mitigate his use of illegal drugs. Relief denied.

 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. Relief denied.


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 | 2003_Navy | ND03-00626

    Original file (ND03-00626.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-00626 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030226. 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 “convenience of the government a RE code change to RE-1 and corresponding SEP. CODE.” The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review. At this time, the Board determined that the documentation submitted by the Applicant does...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-01086

    Original file (ND01-01086.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Decision A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 020328. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 000901 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to drug abuse (use) (A). 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.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00423

    Original file (ND04-00423.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    _______________________________________________________________________ In accordance with 32 C.F.R., section 724.166, and SECNAVINST 5420.174C, enclosure (1), paragraph 1.16, The American Legion submits to the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB or Board) the above issue and following statement in supplement to the Applicant’s petition.Review of the available records reflect that this former member maintained satisfactory performance and conduct markings with an OTA of 3.2 and earned the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00541

    Original file (ND03-00541.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-00541 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030212. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Decision A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20040114.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00424

    Original file (ND00-00424.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    991021: An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence and by unanimous vote, found that the applicant had committed misconduct due to drug abuse, that the misconduct warranted separation, and recommended discharge general (under honorable conditions). The attached documents along with my service record will that my general discharge should be upgraded.” The NDRB found the applicant’s issue without merit. After review of the applicant’s record the NDRB found,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00714

    Original file (ND03-00714.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review. 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).Issues 1and 2: The Board has no...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00030

    Original file (ND04-00030.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT ex-FA, USN Docket No. ND04-00030 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20031001. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant’s DD Form 214 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: USNR (DEP) 010917 -...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00694

    Original file (ND03-00694.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-00694 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030314. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant’s DD Form 214 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: USNR (DEP) 960720 - 961121 COG Active: None Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 961122 Date of Discharge: 991119 Length of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00339

    Original file (ND01-00339.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214 (Member 1) Two pages from applicant's service record PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: None Inactive: USNR (DEP) 961126 - 961215 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 961216 Date of Discharge: 000315 Length of Service (years, months, days):Active: 03 03...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00728

    Original file (ND04-00728.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the Applicant’s service was discovered by the NDRB. .” Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant’s DD Form 214 PART II...