Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00329
Original file (ND03-00329.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-EMFA, USN
Docket No. ND03-00329

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20021219. 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. The Applicant did not list any representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20031205. 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 1910-146, formerly Article 3630620.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

 Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

 “ Dear Sir or Madam:

I, A_ D_ J_ (Applicant), served in the United States Navy during the period of July 25,1997 thru February 10, 2000, and was Honorably Discharged on 11 February 2000. On the same date, I re-enlisted in the Navy for a period of six (6) years and received An Other Than Honorable Discharge due to misconduct - drug abuse.

While in high school, I begin doing research on the U.S. Navy. After reviewing research and contacting A U.S. Navy Recruiter, I enlisted in the Navy. I was in awe of what the Naval Program stood for and had to offer.

In May 1998, I entered the Nuclear Power "A" School and completed the Nuclear Power Command School in April 1999. I chose this particular primary specialty for the great opportunity that would be offered in the civilian job market. The inappropriate behaviors and actions that I exhibited while in the Navy resulted in the Other Than Honorable Discharge. I regret my actions and I am truly sorry for not representing the U.S. Navy in the best professional manner as I was trained, and disappointing all of the people who had faith in me. I think often about the poor choices I made and how my life would be different today, if I had not used bad judgement in my wrongdoings. I have missed job opportunities, especially in my previous training as a Nuclear Power Technician with several large U.S. Industries, after a review of my official separation /DD 214 Form with the separation code of HKK. I feel ashamed and realized, as well as think about the great future and opportunity I missed, by defying the rules and laws of the U.S. Navy.

I made a huge mistake, I was young, immature and unappreciative of the wonderful opportunity afforded to me while serving in the Navy. I have learned from my mistake and I have made positive changes since that time. I have grown morally and spiritually and I am very active in my church and community through membership the choir and music ministry, and volunteered with political campaign activities. I anticipate in the near future mentoring young kids, so I can encourage them not to make the same mistakes that I did and be a positive role model for them.

As of February 2002, I enrolled in DeVry Institute of Technology, earning a degree in Electronic Engineering Technology to further enhance my Navy training as a Nuclear Power Technician.

I’m now a father and want to be able to provide a good life and opportunities for my son. I would like for my son to be proud of his father. As a child, I was impressed when seeing military (U.S. Navy) men in the community. The changes that I have made in my life are genuine. I am committed to remaining a positive person and will continue to grow.

I respectfully request that the Other Than Honorable Discharge be reviewed and upgraded. This request if approved will be greatly appreciated and be in the best interest of the U.S. Navy.

A_ D_ J_ (Applicant)
EM (SU) ”

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Applicant’s DD Form 214 (2)
Letter from Department of Veterans Affairs, dated April 26, 2001 (2 pages)
Letter from Applicant’s parents, dated November 22, 2002
Applicant’s resumé
Letter from DeVry, dated May 23, 2001
Notice of procedural and appellate rights
Eight pages from Applicant’s service

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     970417 - 970724  COG
         Active: USN                        970725 - 000210  HON

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Reenlistment: 000211             Date of Discharge: 001027

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 00 08 17
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 20                          Years Contracted: 6

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 75

 Highest Rate: EM2

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 2.00 (1)    Behavior: 2.00 (1)                OTA: 2.17

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: None

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: 2

 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 :

000606:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Failure to obey an order or regulation on 000519, to wit: derelict in the performance of duties, to field day the ship.
         Award: Oral reprimand, reduction to EM3. No indication of appeal in the record.
000718:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (3 specs): 1 Absent from appointed place of duty on 0600-0705, 000707, 2 Fail to go to prescribed place of duty on 000705. 3 Failed to go to prescribed place of duty on 000706, 4 Absent from place of duty on 1830, 000712.
         Award: Forfeiture of $95 per month for 1 month, oral reprimand, reduction to EMFN. No indication of appeal in the record.
000908:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 107: False official statement on 000829, violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (2 specs): 1 Absent from unit on 000903 – 000905 (2 days), 2 Absent from unit from 000905 -000906.
         Award: Forfeiture of $500 per month for 2 months, correctional custody for 30 days, reduction to EMFA. No indication of appeal in the record.
000908:  Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (Any further misconduct will activate administrative processing.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

000929:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 112A: Wrongful use of a controlled substance, to wit: marijuana.
         Award: Forfeiture of $500 per month for 2 months, reduction to EMFR. Forfeiture suspended. No indication of appeal in the record.
001004:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse, misconduct due to commission of a serious offense, and misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.
001004:  Applicant advised of his rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights.
001012:  Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse, misconduct due to commission of a serious offense, and misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.

001013:  COMSUBGRU TWO 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 20001027 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to drug abuse (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 three separate occasions one of which was for illegal drug use. 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 Sailors receive no higher characterization than is due. The Applicant’s discharge characterization accurately reflects his service to his country. Relief is therefore 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. 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. At this time, the Applicant has not provided sufficient verifiable documentation of good character and conduct to mitigate his misconduct while on active duty. Relief is not warranted.

The NDRB noted an administrative error on the original DD Form 214. Block 18 did not reflect the Applicant’s previous three years of honorable service. The Board notified Commander, Naval Personnel Command, Millington, TN and recommended the DD Form 214 be corrected or reissued.

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 . 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 | 2000_Navy | ND00-00556

    Original file (ND00-00556.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I (applicant) was released from military service with an other than honorable due to drug test. No indication of appeal in the record.880519: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse as evidenced by your wrongful use of cocaine.880519: Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights.880523: Commanding...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00816

    Original file (ND01-00816.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).The applicant’s issue 1 states that his discharge was unjust. The Board found no injustice in the discharge. He 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.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00938

    Original file (ND04-00938.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions and the reason for the discharge be changed to “ Less than exemplary performance. Decision A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20041008. The summary of service clearly documents that misconduct due to drug abuse was the reason the Applicant was discharged.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00231

    Original file (ND01-00231.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION Yes, I continued to use drugs for about a month after I was discharged, that's how long it took me realize what I have lost. 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’s issue describes the circumstances surrounding his discharge and that he has been drug free for “about five months.” The Board...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00737

    Original file (ND04-00737.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions). 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: The Applicant states his discharge was based on one isolated incident in “59 months.” Despite a servicemember’s prior record of service, certain serious offenses, even...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01257

    Original file (ND02-01257.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 920511 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 | 2002_Navy | ND02-00628

    Original file (ND02-00628.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I was 17 when I joined the Navy, 18 when I was discharged, and I am now 21 years old. No indication of appeal in the record.990319: DD Form 214: Applicant discharged under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse (use), authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-146.Discharge package missing from service record. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 990319 under other than honorable conditions...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00030

    Original file (ND01-00030.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00030 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 001004, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable and the reason for the discharge be changed to misconduct. 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’s first issue states: “My undesirable discharge was inequitable...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01468

    Original file (ND03-01468.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 20000215 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to drug abuse (A). 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500813

    Original file (ND0500813.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. I strongly recommend that SNM be separated from the naval service with characterization of service as Other Than Honorable.950510: BUPERS directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse. At this time, the Applicant has not provided sufficient documentation of post service character and conduct to mitigate the...