Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-01057
Original file (ND01-01057.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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


ex-HM2, USN
Docket No. ND01-01057

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 010807, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable and the reason for the discharge be changed to service completed or equivalent. The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. The applicant did not list any representative on the DD Form 293. Subsequent to the application, the applicant obtained representation by the Veterans of Foreign Wars.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 020307. 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 and narrative reason of the discharge shall not change. The discharge shall remain: GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-146, formerly Article 3630620.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

1. We contend that the discharge is improper. The applicant has submitted evidence to support his contention that he did not commit drug abuse. There is nothing in the record that supports the allegations that Mr. (applicant) used drugs. Therefore, we ask that you change the discharge as requested.

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
Copy of DD Form 214
Copy of Evaluation Report and Counseling Record
 Copy of police record check from Osceola County, Florida dated August 1, 2001
 Copy of police record check from City of Kissimmee, Florida dated July 31, 2001
Job reference dated June 25, 2001
 Letter from Member of Congress dated June 18, 2001
Letter to congressman dated June 11, 2001
Copy of facsimile transmittal (4 pages)
Copy of FedEx (sender's copy) (2 copies)
Copy of cancel separation orders dated June 15, 2001
Letter from applicant to Naval Military Personnel Command dated June 1, 2001
Copy of report and disposition of offense(s) dated January 4, 2001 (2 copies)
Copy of accused's notification and election of rights dated January 12, 2001
Forty-eight pages from applicant's service record
Copy of e-mail dated May 30, 2001
Copy of e-mail dated May 9, 2001
 Copy of NJP Rights
 Character reference
Character reference
 Character reference dated January 26, 2001
 Character reference
Character reference
 Character reference
 Character reference
Letter from applicant dated February 16, 2001
 Copy of Class Schedule/Grade Report
 Copy of e-mail dated May 30, 2001
Copy of e-mail dated March 8, 2001
 Copy of registry transcript dated May 22, 2001
 Copy of academic institution courses taken on active duty dated May 22, 2001
Copy of travel certificate, separation without orders dated May 30, 2001
 Copy of e-mail dated May 30, 2001
 Copy of e-mail dated March 15, 2001
Copy of e-mail dated May 31, 2001
 Copy of e-mail dated May 21, 2001
 Copy of defense exhibits
Copies of evaluations from prior enlistments
 News article dated February 25, 1999 (2 copies)
 Congressional response dated September 26, 2001
Copy of course registration dated August 25, 2001
 Class schedule, grade report dated February 8, 2002

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: USN                        880105 - 911112  HON
                   USN                       911113 - 960711  HON
                   USN                       960712 - 001130  HON
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     870626 - 880104  COG
Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 001201               Date of Discharge: 010601

 Length of Service (years, months, days):
         Active: 00 06 01
          Inactive: None
Age at Entry: 32                          Years Contracted: 2

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 63
Highest Rate: HM2

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 4.00 (1)    Behavior: 3.00 (1)                OTA: 3.43
Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: HSM, OSR (5), MUC (2), CGSOSR, GCM (3), AFSM, NDSM
Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-146, formerly 3630620.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

001226:  NAVDRUGLAB, Jacksonville, FL reports applicant's urine sample, received 001218, tested positive for THC.
010104:  Report and Disposition of Offense(s) Wrongful use marijuana on or about 13 December 2000.
010118:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.
010122:  Applicant advised of his rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge Board.
010313:  An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence and by a vote of 2 to 1, found that the applicant had committed misconduct due to drug abuse, that the misconduct warranted separation, and recommended discharge general (under honorable conditions).

010412:  Commanding officer recommended retention in mandatory processing for discharge by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse (use). Commanding officer’s comments:
 (1) I strongly recommend that HM2 (applicant) be retained on active duty.

 (2) HM2 (applicant) is a 13-year veteran of the U.S. Navy with a previously flawless record of good service. His family members and supervisors were surprised at his urinalysis result and do not honestly believe he abused any drugs.

(3) HM2 (applicant) refused NJP, demanded Court Martial to prove innocence, but was denied Court Martial due to low level of THC in urine.

 (4) He has consistently tested negative in all subsequent surveillance urinalysis tests. Interestingly, he reenlisted 10 days prior to ' the' Command-wide Urinalysis. He goes to night school (college). He is a dedicated worker who wants to succeed and better provide for his family. Drug abuse does not fit his character. He even voluntarily elected to make a sworn statement and take questions to defend himself.
(5) HM2 (applicant) has a plausible explanation for the THC in his urine - a new weight reduction diet involving use of bulk granola, known to possibly contain hemp seed or hemp oil for health reasons (source of omega-3 fatty acids). The family immediately stopped use of granola products. A Navy toxicologist indicated that use of granola could produce positive THC tests. The Administrative Separation Board was split and overall conclusion was based only on positive urinalysis, for which there is a-plausible explanation, and not on any other evidence of drug abuse.
(6) The results of this case will definitely impact on all the enlisted personnel at this Command. My concern is that there is fair and equitable treatment of all concerned Navy-wide. In this case, given the excellent service history, the plausible explanation for THC, and lack of evidence of drug abuse, I disagree with the Administration Separation Board's Findings.
010423:  CNPC directed the applicant's discharge general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse (use). [Extracted from supporting documents submitted by applicant.]

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 010601 general (under 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 Board found no impropriety or inequity in the actions of the applicant’s command in his administrative separation proceedings. The applicant’s positive urinalysis constituted use of an illegal drug. The applicant’s commanding officer had the authority to conduct an investigation and make a determination on whether or not the drug use was or was not wrongful. However, this action was not taken and the applicant was referred for administrative separation. These actions, including the Administrative Discharge Board’s decisions, were proper and equitable. Drug abuse warranted processing for separation, normally under other than honorable conditions. No other narrative reason more clearly describes the circumstances surrounding the applicant’s processing for administrative separation. The discharge was proper and equitable. Relief denied.
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 relief, 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. Relief denied.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)
A . The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 31, dated 20 Feb 01, effective 12 Feb 2001 until Present, 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 | BCNR | CY2001 | 06158-01

    Original file (06158-01.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    g. A Navy pharmacologist submitted a report to the ADB in which she stated that both marijuana and hemp will produce the metabolite THC. The majority notes that the DAA.R reporting the accession urinalysis was apparently never acted upon by anyone and it was not considered in the discharge processing. The foregoing report of the Board is submitted for your review and action.

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00968

    Original file (ND99-00968.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    921208: 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, recommended applicant be retained. 950407: 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 under other than honorable...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00205

    Original file (ND01-00205.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00205 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 001207, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. 850312: Applicant informed evaluated as a drug or alcohol abuser and placed in rehabilitation. 860221: Medical evaluation for drug abuse found the applicant to be an infrequent drug abuser, not drug dependent.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-01020

    Original file (ND01-01020.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    870515: Applicant placed on mandatory urinalysis program for 180 days.870619: NAVDRUGLAB, Norfolk, VA, reported Applicant ’ s urine sample, received 870611, tested positive for THC.Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (Identified as having been involved in one drug related incident (positive command directed urine sample) prior to this date. He is not recommended for further naval service.870709: Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00292

    Original file (ND02-00292.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I was discharged from the navy with other than honorable discharge. NJP this incident, Article 112a, awarded reduction in rate, extra duty and restriction for 45 days and forfeiture of pay of $310.00 for two months. Award: Forfeiture of $319 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to SR. No indication of appeal in the record.870108: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00955

    Original file (ND03-00955.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 20010625 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to drug abuse (A). The Applicant can provide documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments or any other evidence related to his discharge at that time.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 07685-05

    Original file (07685-05.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 May 2006. (13) to investigate the possibility of a positive urine drug test as a result of daily ingestion of various amounts of these “new’ t preparations, with total daily doses of THC ranging from 0.09 to 0.6 mg (equivalent to 45-300 g of hulled hemp seeds containing 2 /Lg/g THC or 19—120 mL of hemp-seed oil at 5 mg/L THC) in the form of blends of hemp- seed...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00463

    Original file (ND00-00463.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND00-00463 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 000229, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. 870701: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse as evidenced by 870430 nonjudicial punishment for wrongful use of a controlled substance and having been involved in a positive command directed urine sample on...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00015

    Original file (ND04-00015.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND04-00015 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20031001. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. The first drug screening I had done was three days after I got the results back from the navy.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01327

    Original file (ND02-01327.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-01327 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 20020917, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. 871214: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse rehabilitation failure as evidenced by two positive urinalysis tests while on 4X6 urinalysis aftercare program; and misconduct due to drug abuse as evidenced by service...