Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00449
Original file (ND03-00449.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-AA, USN
Docket No. ND03-00449

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20030124. 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 did not list any representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20031229. 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:

Issue 1. “I don’t have the forms but, during my appeal board my lawyer showed them the chain of custody from for my urine sample cause the lab never signed it before they sent the sample back. Which meant the sample wasn’t accounted for before my command got them. I felt that my situation wasn’t handle the correct way.”
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)     990308 - 990317  COG
         Active: None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 990318               Date of Discharge: 020424

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 03 01 07
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 20                          Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 40

 Highest Rate: AN

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 2.67 (3)    Behavior: 2.33 (3)                OTA: 2.45

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NER, AFEM, SSDR

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: 4

 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 :

991120:  Applicant to unauthorized absence 0700, 991120.

991121:  Applicant from unauthorized absence 0730, 991121 (1 day/surrendered).

 000831:  Civil Conviction: General District Court, Traffic Division, Norfolk, VA for violation of improper turn (accident).
 Sentence: Fine $25.00 and court cost.
010331:  Applicant to unauthorized absence 0700, 010331.

010402:  Applicant from unauthorized absence 0630 010402 (1 day/surrendered).

010523:  Applicant to unauthorized absence 0630, 010523.

010525:  Applicant from unauthorized absence 0630, 010525 (2 days/surrendered).

010830:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 128: Assault on 010829.
         Award: Forfeiture of $100 per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duty for 7 days, reduction to AA. Reduction suspended for 6 months. No indication of appeal in the record.
010918:  NAVDRUGLAB, Jacksonville, FL, reported Applicant’s urine sample, received 010913, tested positive for THC.

010927:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 112A: Wrongful use of marijuana.
         Award: Forfeiture of $584 per month for 2 months, restriction for 60 days, reduction to AA. No indication of appeal in the record.
011217:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense as evidenced by the Captain’s Mast held on 30 August 2001, for assault and misconduct due to drug abuse as evidenced by the Captain’s Mast held on 27 September 2001, for wrongful use of marijuana.
011217:  Applicant advised of his rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge Board.
020222:  An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence and by unanimous vote, found that the Applicant had committed misconduct due to commission of a serious offense and misconduct due to drug abuse, that the misconduct warranted separation, and recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions.

020317:  Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense and misconduct due to drug abuse.

020410:  COMNAVAIRLANT Norfolk, VA directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20020424 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: The Applicant’s issues are without merit. There is credible evidence in the record that the Applicant used illegal drugs. Mandatory processing for separation is required for sailors who abuse illegal drugs. Separation under these conditions generally results in characterization of service under other than honorable conditions. The Board found no indication in the record that the Applicant was inequitably or improperly discharged. The Applicant’s allegations do not refute the presumption of regularity in this case. Relief 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.

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 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 | 2002_Navy | ND02-00575

    Original file (ND02-00575.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Accordingly, I recommend that AA B_ (Applicant) be discharged from the naval service for drug abuse with a characterization of Other Than Honorable.] The Applicant After a complete review of the entire record, including the evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board determined that the Applicant’s discharge was proper and equitable and that his evidence of post-service accomplishments was found not to mitigate the conduct for which he was discharged.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500159

    Original file (ND0500159.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION 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 | ND03-00308

    Original file (ND03-00308.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests that 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, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (C and D).The Applicant did not introduce any decisional issues for the Board’s consideration. Verifiable proof of any post-service accomplishments must be provided in order for the Applicant to claim...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00955

    Original file (ND03-00955.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 20010625 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to drug abuse (A). 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 | 2002_Navy | ND02-00526

    Original file (ND02-00526.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00526 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020320, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable or general/under honorable conditions. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 010525 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to drug abuse (use) (A). You may view DoD Directive 1332.28 and other Decisional Documents by going online at "...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00182

    Original file (ND03-00182.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :010730: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence for 10 days. 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 Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment opportunities as requested in the issue. At this time, the applicant has not...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00389

    Original file (ND04-00389.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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: None Active: USN 920413 - 970126 HON Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 970127 Date of Discharge: 991220 Length of Service (years, months, days):Active: 02 10 23 Inactive: None The Applicant’s allegations, that she was denied assistance...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500224

    Original file (ND0500224.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION _________________________________________________________________ In accordance with Title 32, CFR, Section 724.116 and SECNAVINST 5420.174D, Part I, Paragraph 1.20, The American Legion submits to the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB or Board) the above issue and following statement in supplement to this Applicant’s petition.The...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00017

    Original file (ND04-00017.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. 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. Separation under these conditions generally results in characterization of service under other than honorable conditions.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00119

    Original file (ND03-00119.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant’s DD Form 214 Character reference, dated December 13, 2001 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: USNR (DEP) 19960209 – 19960611 COG Active: None Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 19960612 Date of Discharge: 20011222 Length of Service (years, months, days):Active: 05 06...