Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00405
Original file (ND02-00405.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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


ex-FA, USN
Docket No. ND02-00405

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 020225, 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 021022. 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 HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL)/Misconduct – Drug abuse (Use), authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630620.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION


Issues, as submitted

 1. I feel my discharge was inequitable because it was a first offense during my enlistment and was never offered rehabilitation of any kind.
I had asked for rehabilitation and was denied any.
I now have a full time job and have straightened my life around. And I am very responsible person. And care for others and help others to the best of my ability. I have no need for drugs and have been clean for quite a few years. Because I am a law abiding citizen.
Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Character reference dated January 15, 2002
Character reference dated January 22, 2002
 Character reference, undated
 Copy of DD Form 214

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: None
          Inactive: USNR (DEP)     861221 - 860210  COG
Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 860211               Date of Discharge: 880422

 Length of Service (years, months, days):
         Active: 02 02 12
         Inactive: None
Age at Entry: 20                          Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 32
Highest Rate: FN

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):
Performance: 3.60 (1)    Behavior: 2.00 (1)                OTA: 2.80

 Military Decorations: None
Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: SSDR

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None
Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance):

UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL)/Misconduct – Drug abuse (Use), authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630620.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

880122:  Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (indebtedness; failure to provide spousal support), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

880128:  NAVDRUGLAB, Jacksonville, FL reports Applicant's urine sample, received 880114, tested positive for THC.
880205:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 112a: Wrongful use of a controlled substance on 7 Jan 88.
         Award: Forfeiture of 1/2 months pay for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to FA. No indication of appeal in the record.
880218:  NAVDRUGLAB, Jacksonville, FL reports Applicant's urine sample, received 880208, tested positive for THC.
880219:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse as evidenced by positive urinalysis.
880226:  Applicant advised of his rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge Board.
880303:  Drug and Alcohol Abuse Report: Marijuana abuse, less than monthly, ashore off duty. Random urinalysis 880107. CAAC found Applicant not dependent and recommended Level III treatment. Commanding Officer recommended Level III treatment. Comments: FA (Applicant) is an average worker whose potential for further service is fair. He demonstrates a lack of maturity and is often unwilling to take responsibility for his actions.
880303:  Drug and Alcohol Abuse Report: Marijuana abuse, ashore off duty, abuse denied. Urinalysis for fitness for duty 880204. DAPA recommended separate from service. Commanding Officer recommended separate from service.
880304:  Medical evaluation for drug abuse found the Applicant to be an episodic alcohol abuser and poly drug abuser, not drug dependent.

880311:  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 honorable conditions (general).

880322:  Commanding Officer, USS BOWEN (FF-1079) recommended discharge under honorable conditions (general) by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse (use).
880414:  CNMPC directed the Applicant's discharge under honorable conditions (general) by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse (use).

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 880422 under honorable conditions (general) 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. There is credible evidence in the record that the Applicant used illegal drugs on at least two occasions. Drug abuse warranted processing for separation, normally under other than honorable conditions. The discharge was proper and equitable. The Applicant was not offered substance rehabilitation because he was not dependent at the time on the substances he used. Relief denied.
The Applicant’s discharge characterization accurately reflects his service to his country. The discharge was proper and equitable. 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. Relief not warranted.

The Applicant 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. Representation at a personal appearance hearing is recommended but not required.



Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)
A. Navy Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560A), effective 15 Jun 87 until
10 Jan 89, Article 3630620, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED MEMBERS BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT DUE TO 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 | ND02-00768

    Original file (ND02-00768.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    890427: Medical evaluation for drug abuse found the Applicant to be a drug abuser, not drug dependent. Relief denied.T here 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 Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560A), Change 6, effective 11 Jan 89 until 13 Jun 90, Article 3630620, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED MEMBERS BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT DUE TO...

  • 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 | 1999_Navy | ND99-01127

    Original file (ND99-01127.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board’s vote was unanimous that the character of the discharge shall change to: GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630620.The NDRB did note an administrative error on the original DD Form 214. No further information found.970515: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse as evidenced by CO's NJP 2 Apr 97 and NAVDRUGLAB JACKSONVILLE msg...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00460

    Original file (ND01-00460.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT ex-ADAN, USN Docket No. ND01-00460 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010301, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01198

    Original file (ND99-01198.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT ex-AA, USNR Docket No. I wish to have the Naval Board of Review upgrade my discharge to Honorable. 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.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-01139

    Original file (ND01-01139.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION The applicant’s second issue states that he received good evaluations while working on the flight deck and continued his positive service after his NJP’s. The applicant’s fourth issue states that it was not the Navy’s policy to discharge members for a positive urinalysis.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00917

    Original file (ND02-00917.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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) 830811 - 831127 COG Active: USN 831128 - 851127 HON Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 851128 Date of Discharge: 890713 Length of Service (years, months, days):Active: 03 07 16 Inactive: None Commanding...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01027

    Original file (ND99-01027.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 Copy of Evaluation Report and Counseling Record for 97Mar01 to 97Jun03 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: None Inactive: USNR (DEP) 960112 - 960314 ELS USNR (DEP) 960318 - 960319 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 960320 Date of Discharge: 980515 Length of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00681

    Original file (ND99-00681.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 | 2003_Navy | ND03-01411

    Original file (ND03-01411.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. As the representative, we ask that consideration be given to equitable relief, as this is a matter that involves a determination whether a discharge should be changed under the equity standards, to include any issue upon which the Applicant submits to the Board’s discretionary authority, under SECNAVIST 5420.174C.Under the premises of equitable relief,...