Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00928
Original file (ND02-00928.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-EMFR, USN
Docket No. ND02-00928

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 unable to comply with Navy standards. 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 030319. 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, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-146, formerly Article 3630620.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as submitted

1. My discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident in 15 months of service with no other adverse action. I clearly explained how it happened. The discharge is improper because it is misconduct - drug abuse. Other than this incident, I volunteered for project white hat while at Great Lakes Electrical School. I did complete. I never received the letter of commendation I deserved. A quiet, yet hardworking person, after 2 months on board USS CARNEY DDG-64, I was qualified in numerous positions. Also on board USS CARNEY myself and several other electricians were responsible for securing Charlie fire in a switchboard. I gave to charities and also gave all for the GI Bill. Also while onboard USS CARNEY I was awarded the good conduct medal which I never received. But after the one isolated incident of 330 people onboard, 95% judged me. I don't see any misconduct. I see that I made a mistake, which we all do. One that is keeping me from reaching many goals I have. I wanted to be the best sailor and person I could. I respectfully request my discharge to be upgraded to a General.

 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)     990720 - 000529  COG
         Active: None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 000530                        Date of Discharge: 010810

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 01 02 11
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 17 Parental Consent                Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 12                                 AFQT: 33

 Highest Rate: EMFA

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 1.00 (1)    Behavior: 1.00 (1)                OTA: 1.67

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: None

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: 13

 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 :

010612:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence from 010521 to 010603 (13 days), violation of UCMJ, Article 87: Missing ship's movement on 010521, violation of UCMJ, Article 112a: Wrongful use of a controlled substance, to wit: THC between 010521 and 010601.
         Award: Forfeiture of $521.40 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to EMFR. No indication of appeal in the record.
010614:  Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (Unauthorized absence, missing ship's movement and wrongful use of a controlled substance), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

010625:  NAVDRUGLAB, Jacksonville, FL reported Applicant's urine sample, received 010621, tested positive for THC.
010702:  Medical evaluation for drug abuse waived by Applicant.

010702:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.
010702:  Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights except the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation.
010710:  Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse (use).

010806:  Commander, Carrier Group SIX 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 010810 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).

 Issue 1. There is credible evidence in the record that the Applicant used illegal drugs. Even one instance of drug abuse warranted processing for separation, normally under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct. Relief denied.
The Applicant did not serve long enough on active duty to warrant award of a Good Conduct Medal. The Board found no information in the service record to support the Applicant’s claim that a letter of commendation should be added to his list of awards and decorations. The Applicant’s discharge characterization accurately reflects his service to his country. Normally, to permit relief, an error or inequity must have existed during the period of enlistment in question. No such error or inequity is evident 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 . The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 33, effective 16 Jul 2001 until 21 Aug 2002, 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 " 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 | 2004_Navy | ND04-00094

    Original file (ND04-00094.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions). 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, is considered. At this time, the applicant has not provided sufficient documentation of post service character and conduct to mitigate the misconduct...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00249

    Original file (ND04-00249.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to entry-level separation. It has been a little over two years since I have been out the navy. 010809: Commander, Submarine Group 9 directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.

  • 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,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00761

    Original file (ND04-00761.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review. 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 | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00545

    Original file (ND03-00545.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the Applicant’s service was discovered by the NDRB. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant’s DD Form 214 PART II -...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00079

    Original file (ND03-00079.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After a complete review of the entire record, including the evidence submitted by the Applicant, the board determined that his discharge was appropriate and that his evidence of post-service conduct is insufficient to mitigate the conduct for which he was discharged. Relief denied.The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of discharge. Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)A.

  • 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

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00685

    Original file (ND02-00685.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00685 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020418, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. The Applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. I agreed with Navy officials to sign discharge papers not cleared to me.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00800

    Original file (ND04-00800.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review. 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.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00860

    Original file (ND03-00860.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-00860 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030424. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable or general/under honorable conditions. The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review.