Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00650
Original file (ND02-00650.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-ETSN, USN
Docket No. ND02-00650

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 020411, 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 030116. 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 – Drug abuse (Use), authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630620.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as submitted

1. I'm writing this with the hope of having my discharge upgraded. I served my country for over 10 years in the US Navy. I received 2 honorable discharges along the way as a result of 2 reenlistments. My more than 10 years of service was exceptional. I made E-6 in about 6 years and always received outstanding evaluations and also received numerous Letters of Appreciation and Commendation. I received several service medals, including 2 good conduct medals. I was a member of the 'Personal Reliability Program' and was entrusted to guard nuclear weapons. I also maintained a Top Secret security clearance during much of my service. Pride and professionalism were important to me. I had a couple of very minor scrapes along the way, but overall I can honestly say I served honorably. All that came to a bitter end, quite quickly, when I failed a urinalysis and was subsequently discharged. At the time, I was going through a difficult divorce and made some very poor choices. I chose to try and escape my troubles by using illicit drugs. I know now and knew then that it was wrong. I showed very poor judgment during those times, but it was a very minor amount of time in relation to my overall service. Since leaving the Navy, I've been an upstanding citizen and, for the most part, been gainfully employed ever since. I even do some volunteer charity work. I respectfully implore you to find that my discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident in well over 10 years of service with no other adverse action. Thank you.

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Applicant's of DD Form 214

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     780513 - 780917  COG
         Active: USN                        790918 - 840830  HON
                  USN                       840831 - 871230  HON

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 871231               Date of Discharge: 890811

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 01 07 11
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 26                          Years Contracted: 3

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 65

 Highest Rate: ET1

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.07 (3)    Behavior: 1.93 (3)                OTA: 2.80

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: GCM (2), HSM, SSDR (2), NUC, Letter of Commendation

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

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

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

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

871231:  Applicant reenlisted for 3 years.

 8810XX:  Applicant arrested by Eureka Police for driving under the influence. [Extracted from CO's letter dated 12 Jul 89.]

881116:  Applicant's base driving privileges are revoked for a period of 365 days.

881213:  Medical evaluation (CAAC) for alcohol abuse found the Applicant to be an alcohol abuser.

890427:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 112A: Wrongful use of cocaine.
         Award: Forfeiture of 1/2 months pay for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to ET2. No indication of appeal in the record.
890509:  NAVDRUGLAB, Oakland, CA reported Applicant's urine sample, received 890501, tested positive for cocaine.
890605:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 112A. No further information found.
         Award: Forfeiture of $696.45 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to ET2. No indication of appeal in the record.
890605:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse as evidenced by the illegal use or possession of a controlled substance.
890607:  Medical evaluation (CAAC) for drug abuse found the Applicant to be a drug abuser who appears psychologically dependent on cocaine.

890616:  Applicant advised of his rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights.
890621:  Applicant refused treatment at a VA hospital.

 890712:  Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse (use).

890804:  CNMPC directed 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 890811 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).

Responding to the issues raised by the Applicant, the Board noted that t he Applicant stated he tried to serve to the best of his ability, but was unable to do so due to poor decisions he made while undergoing a difficult divorce. The NDRB recognizes that serving in the Navy is very challenging. Our country is fortunate to have men and women willing to endure the hardships and sacrifices required in order to serve their country. It must be noted that most Sailors serve honorably and well and therefore earn honorable discharges. In fairness to those Sailors, commanders and separation authorities are tasked to ensure that undeserving members receive no higher characterization than is due. While the NDRB respects the fact that the applicant had previous honorable service, the period of service in question is equitably characterized as being performed under other than honorable conditions. Relief is not warranted.

The following is provided for the edification of the Applicant. Normally, to permit relief, an error or inequity must have been found to have existed during the period of enlistment in question. The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. However, 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. 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 can be considered. Examples include documentation such as educational pursuits, verifiable employment record(s), documentation of community service, and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities. At this time, the applicant has not provided sufficient documentation for the Board to consider. Therefore, no relief will be granted.

The Applicant is encouraged to continue with his pursuits and is reminded that he is eligible for a personal appearance hearing provided the application is received within 15 years from the date of discharge. Representation by counsel is not required but recommended. Relief denied.




Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A. 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 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 " 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:

                  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 | ND03-00130

    Original file (ND03-00130.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In the acknowledgement letter, the Applicant was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) does not travel; all hearings are held in the Washington DC area. Age at Entry: 22 Years Contracted: 8 Education Level: 12 AFQT: 34 Highest Rate: BTFA Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks): Performance: 2.40 (2) Behavior: 2.40 (2) OTA: 2.40 Military Decorations: None Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: None Days of Unauthorized Absence: 9 Character, Narrative Reason,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00336

    Original file (ND01-00336.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Decision A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 010710. 830729: Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (You have been identified as a drug abuser through urinalysis screening/awarded NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for a drug related offense), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning. Unfortunately the applicant had only 15 years from the date of his discharge to request...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00664

    Original file (ND00-00664.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND00-00664 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 000424, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. At the time it was a common practice to screen dependents PRIOR to issuing orders overseas and many times prior to entering into a GUARD III assignment with an individual. Relief is denied based on this issue.In the applicant’s issue 2, evidence is presented by the applicant concerning his...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00262

    Original file (ND02-00262.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    860815: CAAC evaluation: Applicant does not appear psychologically dependent on cocaine but would benefit from a Level II counseling program due to his alcohol abuse.860828: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 112A: Wrongfully use cocaine on 860722. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 19970417 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to drug abuse (use) (A). Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00801

    Original file (ND00-00801.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): Active: None Inactive: None Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 871218 Date of Discharge: 891003 Length of Service (years, months, days):Active: 01 05 23 Inactive: 00 03 25 Comments: No potential for future naval...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00651

    Original file (ND99-00651.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Days of Unauthorized Absence: None Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance):UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Misconduct – Drug abuse (Use), authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630620. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 920918 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to drug abuse (use) (A). After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00559

    Original file (ND00-00559.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 Notice of appeal of captain's mast and request for discovery of the governmentLetter of deficiency to administrative separation board CO QM2 (applicant), USNAffidavit of M_ R_ H_, Ph.D Statements of character from all immediate supervisors spanning the period of time relevantE-mail correspondence between Capt. 990303: An Administrative...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00373

    Original file (ND00-00373.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND00-00373 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 000128, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. No indication of appeal in the record.860924: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse as evidenced by a positive random urinalysis for cocaine and misconduct due to commission of a serious...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00122

    Original file (ND00-00122.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :861017: CAAC evaluation for drug abuse found the applicant to be non-dependent on drugs or alcohol. In response to applicant’s issue 2, the Board has no obligation to change the applicant’s discharge in order to allow him to contribute to the community. Navy Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560), Change 4/85, effective 06 Oct 86 until 14 Dec 86, Article 3630620, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED MEMBERS BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT DUE TO DRUG ABUSEB.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01282

    Original file (ND03-01282.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENTex-ET1, USNDocket No. One who made a mistake on his time (leave) & has paid for it for over 6 ½ years now- PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 19961127 with a general (under honorable conditions) for misconduct due to drug abuse (A).