Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00104
Original file (ND02-00104.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-SA, USN
Docket No. ND02-00104

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 011019, 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 020619. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the NDRB discerned no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the applicant’s service. The Board did determine that the applicant’s DD-214 inaccurately lists the characterization of service as under Other Than Honorable conditions. The Board’s vote was unanimous that the character of service shall be administratively corrected to reflect the characterization of service directed by the applicant’s Commanding Officer: UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL)/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-146, formerly Article 3630620 but the characterization of service shall not be upgraded to "honorable", as requested.

The NDRB did note an administrative error on the original DD Form 214. Block 25, Separation Authority should read: “NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-146” vice “MILPERSMAN 1910-140”, Block 26, Separation Code should read: “HKK” vice “HKA”, Block 28, Narrative Reason for Separation should read: “MISCONDUCT” vice “PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT-DRUG ABUSE”. The original DD Form 214 should be corrected or reissued as appropriate.


PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as submitted

1. I believe that my discharge was inequitable because although I did make a mistake that I truly regret I am asking a chance to prove myself and dedicate myself to serve my country. I feel that I have learned from my mistakes and honestly feel that I can be an honest service man.

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
Letter from applicant to congressman dated August 22, 2001
Job/character reference dated August 21, 2001
Copy of certificate dated November 16, 2000
Copy of commendation for June 12, 2000 to June 26, 2000
Copy of commendation for July 17, 2000 to July 21, 2000
Copy of commendation for October 12, 2000
Copy of DD Form 214

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: None
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     980519 - 980527  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 980528               Date of Discharge: 010416

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 02 10 19
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 20                          Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 32

 Highest Rate: HT3

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.00 (4)    Behavior: 2.00 (4)                OTA: 2.67

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: SSDR (2), AFEM

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: 15

 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 :

991012:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence 0715, 17Sep99 to 1728, 2Oct99 (15 days/surrendered), violation of UCMJ, Article 87 (3 specs): Missing ship's movement on 17Sep99, 24Sep99, 1Oct99.
         Award: Forfeiture of $537.90 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to SA. Reduction suspended for 6 months. No indication of appeal in the record.
991012:  Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (Unauthorized absence and missing ship's movement), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

000821:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 128: Assault consummated by a battery on 19Aug00.
         Award: Forfeiture of $630 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, revoked advancement to E-4. No indication of appeal in the record.
000821:  Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (Assault consummated by a battery), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

010301:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 112A: Wrongful use of a controlled substance, to wit: cocaine.
         Award: Forfeiture of $653.55 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to SA. No indication of appeal in the record.
010319:  NAVDRUGLAB, San Diego, reported applicant's urine sample, received 010313, tested positive for cocaine.
010330:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.
010330:  Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights.
010620:  Commanding officer directed discharge general (under 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 010416 with a directed characterization of service as 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 not proper but was equitable (C and D).

Issue 1. The Board determined that the applicant was properly processed for separation by the applicant’s Commanding Officer (CO). The applicant’s service records shows that the characterization of service directed by the applicant’s CO was Under Honorable Conditions (General). Inexplicably, the applicant’s DD-214 states the applicant was discharged Under Other Than Honorable Conditions. The applicant’s DD-214 should be corrected to reflect a characterization of service of Under Honorable Conditions (General).

 A characterization of service of under honorable conditions (general) is warranted when significant negative aspects of a member's conduct or performance of duty outweigh the positive aspects of the member's military record. T he applicant’s service was marred by award of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for offenses triable by court-martial (to include use of illegal drugs) on three occasions and adverse counseling entries on other occasions. The applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflects his willful disobedience of the orders and directives which regulate good order and discipline in naval service, and falls short of that required for an honorable characterization of service. Partial relief, in the way of an administrative correction of the DD Form 214 to reflect "General Under Honorable Conditions" is granted; relief for upgrade to "honorable" is denied .

 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. 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. 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 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 | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00583

    Original file (ND02-00583.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. My reason(s) for submitting this letter to Naval Council of Personnel Boards is to first, thank you for allowing me to voice an apology to the United States Military. A request for waiver is normally done only during the processing of a formal application for enlistment through a recruiter.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01189

    Original file (ND02-01189.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 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: None Active: None Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 980910 Date of Discharge: 000908 Length of Service (years, months, days):Active: 01 11 29 (Does not exclude lost time and confinement time.) Chronological Listing of...

  • 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 | 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 | 2003_Navy | ND03-00384

    Original file (ND03-00384.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. The Applicant can provide documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments or any other evidence related to his discharge at that time. 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.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00040

    Original file (ND00-00040.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 (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 follow its own rules in processing the applicant for discharge) and equity (did the applicant receive a discharge characterization in keeping with Navy guidance or was the characterization...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01019

    Original file (ND02-01019.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    There are circumstances, however, where the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident may form the basis of characterization. The NDRB is authorized, however, 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. At this time, the Applicant has not provided documenta-tion...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00678

    Original file (ND02-00678.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The discharge shall remain: GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-146, formerly Article 3630620. At this time, the applicant has not provided such documentation for the Board to consider. 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:

  • 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 | 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,...