Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00283
Original file (ND03-00283.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-STGSR, USN
Docket No. ND03-00283

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20021209. The Applicant requests that 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. The Applicant listed the American Legion as the representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20031114. 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. 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 3630620.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

 Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

1. “I was nineteen and going through some tough times when I joined the Navy. I was not mature enough to handle the lack of discipline I encountered while in the Navy. If I could do it over there are many choices I would make differently. I am now 26 and trying to get on with my life. The “other than honorable” discharge has limited my career choices.

I am willing to make whatever sacrifice necessary to correct my mistakes.”

Additional issues submitted by Applicant’s counsel/representative (American Legion):

“ 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:
Applicant’s DD Form 214
Job/character reference from Central Station Manager, Security Associates International, Inc., dated May 16, 2001
Transcript from Portland Community College, dated November 26, 2002
Letter from Applicant, dated November 25, 2002

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     931123 - 940306  COG
         Active: None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 940307               Date of Discharge: 960505

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 02 01 29
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 18                          Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 84

 Highest Rate: STGSA

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: NMF                           Behavior: NMF             OTA: NMF
Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM

 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 3630620.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

940914:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Failure to go to appointed place of duty on 940907.
         Award: Forfeiture of $100 per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duty for 30 days. No indication of appeal in the record.
950818:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: [Extracted from Enlisted Performance Record and backpage of DAAR.] No further information found in service record.
950822:  NAVDRUGLAB, San Diego, CA, reported Applicant’s urine sample, received 950817, tested positive for THC.

950825:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 112A: Wrongful use of a controlled substance.
         Award: Restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to STGSR. No indication of appeal in the record.
960109:  NAVDRUGLAB, San Diego, CA, reported Applicant’s urine sample, received 960102, tested positive for THC.

960210:  Drug and Alcohol Abuse Report: Marijuana abuse, 4 to 7 times per week, ashore off duty. Random urinalysis 950714. CAAC, Medical/Dental recommended Level III treatment. Physician found Applicant dependent and recommended Level III treatment. Commanding Officer recommended Level III. Comments: STGSR K_ (Applicant) was sent for treatment at ARC MIRAMAR for drug dependency. SNM did not complete the program at ARC, he has been evaluated as not fit for military service. Recommend being discharged from the Naval service.

960322:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 112A: Wrongful use of a controlled substance.
         Award: Forfeiture of $437 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days. No indication of appeal in the record.
951204:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.
951204:  Applicant advised of his rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge Board.
960213:  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.

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

960425:  BUPERS 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 19960505 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: 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. While he may feel that his youth and immaturity were contributing factors, they do not mitigate the Applicant’s disobedience of the orders and directives that regulate good order and discipline in the naval service, demonstrating he was unsuitable for further service. His service record is marred by award of non-judicial punishment (NJP) on two separate occasions for illegal drug use. Additionally, the Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing career opportunities as requested in the issue. Regulations limit the Board’s review to a determination on the propriety and equity of the discharge. In the Applicant’s case, the Board could discern no impropriety or inequity and therefore considered the Applicant’s discharge proper and equitable. Relief denied.

Issue 2: 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, a positive employment record, a drug-free lifestyle, and certification of community service and non-involvement with civil authorities are examples of verifiable proof that can be submitted. The Board appreciates the Applicant’s efforts to improve his life and encourages him to continue. However, the Applicant has not provided sufficient verifiable documentation of good character and conduct to mitigate his misconduct while on active duty. 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. The Applicant can provide additional documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments at that time. Representation at a personal appearance hearing is recommended but not required.


 Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A . Navy Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 9/94, effective
22 Jul 94 until 02 Oct 96, 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 | 1999_Navy | ND99-00601

    Original file (ND99-00601.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND99-00601 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 990326, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. 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:...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01320

    Original file (ND02-01320.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-01320 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020920, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable or general/under honorable conditions or entry level separation or uncharacterized. The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 18, effective 12 Dec 97 to 19 May 99, Article 1910-146 (formerly 3630620), Separation by Reason of Misconduct - Drug Abuse. PART IV - INFORMATION FOR THE APPLICANT If you...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01010

    Original file (ND03-01010.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-01010 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030516. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. The NDRB is authorized, however, to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00210

    Original file (ND01-00210.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00210 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 001211, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to Honorable. The Board determined, by the applicant’s own admission, he did not follow existing Navy directives, when going to Mexico. The applicant states he realizes he should have reported his friend for using steroids.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00174

    Original file (ND03-00174.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Thank you for time in this matter.” Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant’s DD Form 214 (Member 1) Police record check dated November 27, 2002 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: 19871031 Date of Discharge: 19891120 Length of Service (years, months,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00161

    Original file (ND00-00161.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 990125 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 this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (C and D).The applicant introduced no decisional issues for consideration by the Board. PART IV - INFORMATION FOR THE APPLICANT If...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00835

    Original file (ND00-00835.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    990715: Applicant made following statement on the Military Suspect's Acknowledgement and Waiver of Rights: "I FR C_ did not use cocaine. No indication of appeal in the record.990728: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.990728: 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00136

    Original file (ND00-00136.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT ex-STGSR, USN Docket No. ND00-00136 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 991102, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00630

    Original file (ND03-00630.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Decision A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20040128. Award: Forfeiture of ½ months pay for 2 months, restriction for 60 days, reduction to SR. No indication of appeal in the record.000922: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.000922: Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected 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...