Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01128
Original file (ND02-01128.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-ENFN, USN
Docket No. ND02-01128

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 020729, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. 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 from the American Legion.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 030722. 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. (Equity Issue) His violation of the UCMJ notwithstanding, this former member opines that his overall service record is sufficient to warrant release under honorable conditions.

 2. (Equity Issue) This former member further requests that the Board include provisions of SECNAVINST 5420.174C, enclosure (1), Chapter 9, as it pertains to post-service conduct, in assessing the merits of this application.

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Meritorious mast, dated July 23, 1998
Letter of commendation
Letter, dated June 30, 2000
Waukesha County Technical College grade report, dated May 26, 2002
Fourth Class Engineer, dated January 1, 2002 (2 copies)
Applicant's DD Form 214
Fourth Class Engineer license card for the year 2002

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     970714 - 971124  COG
         Active: None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 971125               Date of Discharge: 000915

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 02 09 21
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 19                          Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 41

 Highest Rate: EN3

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 4.00 (2)    Behavior: 3.00 (2)                OTA: 3.49

 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 OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-146, formerly 3630620.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

000228:  NAVDRUGLAB, Jacksonville, FL reported Applicant's urine sample, received 000218, tested positive for THC.
000314:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 112A: Wrongful use of marijuana on 000208.
         Award: Forfeiture of $563 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to ENFN. No indication of appeal in the record.
000522:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.
000522:  Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge Board.
000514:  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 conditions.

000724:  Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse (use).

000808:  Commander, Fleet Air Mediterranean 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 000915 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. Drug abuse warranted processing for separation, normally under other than honorable conditions. Relief denied.

Issue 2. 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 inequity must have existed during the period of enlistment in question. No such error or inequity 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, employment record, documentation of community service, certification of non-involvement with civil authorities and credible evidence of a substance free lifestyle, are examples of verifiable documentation that may be provided to receive consideration for relief, based on post-service conduct. The Applicant’s evidence of post-service conduct was found not to mitigate the offense for which he was discharged. 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 27, effective 27 March 2000 - 11 Feb 2001, 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 | 2001_Navy | ND01-00897

    Original file (ND01-00897.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) also advised that the board first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. (Equity Issue) This former member further requests that the Board include provision of SECNAVISNT 5420.174C, enclosure (1), Chapter 9, as it pertains to post-service conduct, in assessing the merits of this application. The applicant states: “(Equity Issue) His violation of UCMJ notwithstanding, this former member opines that his overall service...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00136

    Original file (ND02-00136.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The discharge shall remain: UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-146, formerly Article 3630620. No record of reduction from ENFN to ENFA found in service record. Heis 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.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00395

    Original file (ND01-00395.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Letter from Applicant Letter from Applicant to Captain B____ (2pgs) Copy of DD Form 214 Letter from Department of Veterans Affairs Copies of Evaluation Report & Counseling Record (6pgs) Enlistment/Reenlistment Document PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: USN None Inactive: USNR (DEP) 940811 -...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00911

    Original file (ND04-00911.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. Appeal denied 000915.000919: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.000919: Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00059

    Original file (ND02-00059.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00059 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 011002, 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 001017 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to drug abuse (use) (A). After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01267

    Original file (ND03-01267.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. No indication of appeal in the record.000929: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-01127

    Original file (ND01-01127.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In the acknowledgement letter to the applicant, she was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. No indication of appeal in the record.000929: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense and misconduct due to drug abuse.000929: Applicant advised of his rights and having chosen not to...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00604

    Original file (ND01-00604.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Issues Prior to the documentary discharge review, the applicant introduced no issues as block 8 on the DD Form 293 is blank. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214 Letter from the applicant dated August 21, 2000 Sixty pages from applicant's service record PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: None Inactive: USNR...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00559

    Original file (ND04-00559.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. 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: USNR (DEP) 960628 - 961028 COG Active: None Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 961029 Date of Discharge:...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00089

    Original file (ND03-00089.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The discharge shall remain: UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-146, formerly Article 3630620. Normally, to permit relief, an error or inequity must have existed during the period of enlistment in question. At this time, the applicant has not provided any documentation for the Board to consider.