Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00924
Original file (ND01-00924.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-SN, USNR
Docket No. ND01-00924

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 010711, 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 020130. 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/IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT MARTIAL, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630650.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues (verbatim)

 1. Thank you for your time and understanding I served the navy proudly and admirably for two years, with the exception of one stupid mistake. I worked very hard the two years I was in and never complained whether my duties were long, short, easy, or hard. I showed great team work and due diligence while I served. With the exception of one night being in the wrong place at the wrong time, I always showed great military bearing. I am doing very well with my current occupation and have been promoted 4 times up to service manager. I earned a good living and am happily married I have nothing but great things to tell people about the navy and have been inspirational in several kids joining the navy & marines over the years. In closing, I do not need my discharge to be upgraded to continue my career but doing so would bring back the pride and honor I once had in the U.S. Navy, and myself. Please find it in your heart to upgrade my discharge to honorable. Thanks again for your time.

 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                        None
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 921028               Date of Discharge: 950526

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 02 00 08
         Inactive: 00 06 20

 Age at Entry: 20                          Years Contracted: 8

 Education Level: 11                        AFQT: 56

 Highest Rate: SN

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.20 (2)    Behavior: 3.20 (2)                OTA: 3.20

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT MARTIAL, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article formerly 3630650.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

930518:  Ordered to active duty for 24 months under the Seaman Apprenticeship program.

930519:  Retention Warning: Despite your defective enlistment and induction due to fraudulent entry into naval service as evidenced by your failure to disclose your pre service civil involvement and/or drug abuse. This decision is based on the information you provided the RECRUIT QUALITY ASSURANCE INTERVEIWER and if found not to be factual, this waiver is void and you can be subject to other judicial or administrative proceeding. Parking, 3/93, ANN ARBOR, MI, Paid $10 fine.

950414:  Charges preferred to special court-martial for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) Article 112a: (3 Specifications), Spec 1: Did, in the vicinity of Nassau, Bahamas, during the period of on or about 940301 to on or about 940331, wrongfully use marijuana; Spec 2: Did on board USS SAIPAN (LHA) located at Norfolk, Naval Shipyard, Portsmouth, Virginia, during the period of on or about 9409 to on or about 9411, wrongfully use Lysergic Diethylamide Acid (LSD); Spec 3: Did, at Portsmouth, Virginia, on or about 950302, wrongfully possess 10 hits of Lysergic Diethylamide Acid (LSD).

950524:  A pplicant requested an administrative discharge under other than honorable conditions in lieu of a trial by court-martial. He consulted with counsel and was fully advised of the implications of his request. The applicant stated he understood the elements of the offense(s) with which he was charged, and admitted he was guilty of all the charges preferred against him. Specifically, he admitted to violating UCMJ, Article: 112a: Wrongfully possessed 10 hits of Lysergic Diethylamide Acid (LSD). The applicant stated she/he was completely satisfied with the counsel he had received. The applicant understood that if discharged under other than honorable conditions, it might deprive him of virtually all veterans' benefits based upon his current enlistment, and that he might expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life in situations wherein the type of service rendered or the character of discharge received therefrom may have a bearing.
950526:  Medical Examination: Applicant evaluated by medical officer and found no evidence of disturbance of thought process. Clearly understands situation and charges against him. Psychiatrically fit for full duty, able to answer charges against him.

950526:  The commanding officer, exercising GCMCA, approved the request for an administrative separation in lieu of a trial by court-martial, and directed applicant’s discharge.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 950526 under other than honorable conditions in lieu of a trial by court-martial (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).

 The applicant’s issue states: “Thank you for your time and understanding I served the navy proudly and admirably for two years, with the exception of one stupid mistake. I worked very hard the two years I was in and never complained whether my duties were long, short, easy, or hard. I showed great team work and due diligence while I served. With the exception of one night being in the wrong place at the wrong time, I always showed great military bearing. I am doing very well with my current occupation and have been promoted 4 times up to service manager. I earned a good living and am happily married I have nothing but great things to tell people about the navy and have been inspirational in several kids joining the navy & marines over the years. In closing, I do not need my discharge to be upgraded to continue my career but doing so would bring back the pride and honor I once had in the U.S. Navy, and myself. Please find it in your heart to upgrade my discharge to honorable. Thanks again for your time.” The NDRB found the applicant accepted an Other Than Honorable discharge in order to escape a trial by court martial, and, accordingly, the discharge was proper. The Board considered the seriousness of the offenses and found the discharge was equitably assigned. Relief is not warranted.

 The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the re characterization of a discharge. 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 the civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Normally, to permit relief, an error or injustice must have been found to have existed during the period of enlistment in question. 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. The applicant failed to provide documentary evidence to demonstrate his sobriety, positive community service, employment history, and clean police record. Relief is not warranted.

The applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing provided the application is received within 15 years from the date of discharge. Representation at personal appearance hearing is recommended .


Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)
 A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 9, effective
22 Jul 94 until 2 Oct 96, Article 3630650, PROCEDURES FOR PROCESSING ENLISTED PERSONNEL FOR SEPARATION IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURTMARTIAL.

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 | 2002_Navy | ND02-00207

    Original file (ND02-00207.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board’s vote was unanimous that the character of the discharge shall not change. ]990423: Commanding Officer recommended 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.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501304

    Original file (ND0501304.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requested that his characterization of service be changed to honorable. In the acknowledgement letter, the Applicant was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. 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:Secretary of the Navy Council of Review Boards

  • USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-00785

    Original file (MD03-00785.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD03-00785 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030331. 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:None PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: None Inactive: USMCR(J) 960313 - 960722 COG...

  • USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0600605

    Original file (MD0600605.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD06-00605 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20060329. The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. I have never done drugs in the Marine Corps and I have never done this drug in my life.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00905

    Original file (ND02-00905.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00905 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020610, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable or general/under honorable conditions. 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): Inactive: USNR (DEP) 940819 - 960402 COG Active:...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00190

    Original file (ND01-00190.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT ex-HTFN, USN Docket No. ND01-00190 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 001205, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

  • USMC | DRB | 2002_Marine | MD02-00218

    Original file (MD02-00218.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD02-00218 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020108, 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 Manual for Courts-Martial authorizes the award of a punitive discharge if adjudged as part of the sentence upon conviction by a special or general court-martial for violation of the UCMJ, Article 112a, wrongful use of a...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00406

    Original file (ND01-00406.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 920115 under Other Than Honorable conditions in lieu of a trial by court-martial (A). The applicant states, he joined the Navy at a young age, is happily married, has been employed by Ford for 5 years and 8 months, owns a home but has this thorn in his side (implying the OTH discharge).

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00932

    Original file (ND02-00932.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00932 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020618, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions) and the reason for the discharge be changed to Re code. The Applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. At this time, the Applicant has not provided such documentation for the Board to consider an upgrade.The Applicantis reminded that he remains eligible for a personal...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004 Marine | MD04-00039

    Original file (MD04-00039.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable. 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 of service under review. As of this time, the Applicant has not provided sufficient documentation for the Board to consider.