Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00587
Original file (ND03-00587.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-FN, USN
Docket No. ND03-00587

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20030221. 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. The Applicant did not list any representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20040128. 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: GENERAL (UNDER 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:

1. “I’m requesting an upgrade on my discharge so that I could apply for a government job/civilian police officer. I feel and know that everyone is allowed a second chance at life’s mistakes. I’m a U.S citizen and I pay taxes, so I feel that if I’m committing my self to my country that it should commit to giving me another chance. The military is not cut out for all people and I was one of them. But I have no regrets in joining the Navy. All I’m asking is to get and upgrade (Please) so I can start a new career with a reward company weather its civilian or government.”
Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Applicant’s DD Form 214 (Member 1 and 4)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
          Inactive: USNR (DEP)     970222 - 970430  COG
         Active: None
 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 970501               Date of Discharge: 991025

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 02 05 25
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 21                          Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 37

 Highest Rate: FN

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: NMF*                          Behavior: NMF             OTA: NMF

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: AFSM, SSDR

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

*No Marks Found in the service record

 Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance):

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-146, formerly 3630620.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

991025:  DD Form 214: Applicant discharged general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.
Applicant’s discharge package is missing from service record.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19991025 under honorable conditions (general) 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 Board found that the Applicant’s age, education level, and test scores qualified him for enlistment. While he may feel that he was not able to complete his enlistment, the evidence of record does not demonstrate that the Applicant was not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions. Relief denied.

 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, to enhance employment opportunities, or for 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 24, effective 20 May 99 until 26 March 2000, 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 | 2003_Navy | ND03-00257

    Original file (ND03-00257.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Decision A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20031114. (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 (Member 1 and 4) Navy...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00505

    Original file (ND03-00505.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. “An inadequate discharge is of my concern, but I feel that I have and continued to better myself as a person. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00510

    Original file (ND03-00510.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions or entry level separation or uncharacterized. Decision A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20031229. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00885

    Original file (ND02-00885.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00885 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020607, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. I am a law abiding citizen who just wants to improve my situation, please help me.After a review of the Former Service Members (FSM) DD Form 293 Application for the Naval Discharge Review Board of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States and all of the evidence assembled for review, we continue...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00692

    Original file (ND00-00692.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION 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).In response to the applicant’s issues 1 and 5, the Board found the applicant implies that a permissive doctrine exists whereby one in the military is allowed a “single misdeed”. In response to the applicant’s issues 3 and 4, the applicant’s misconduct outweighs the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00949

    Original file (ND01-00949.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Naval Activities, Spain directed the applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse (use). 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. 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 | 2002_Navy | ND02-01334

    Original file (ND02-01334.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-01334 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 20020920, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, no inequity in the characterization of the Applicant’s service was discovered by the NDRB. Due to this impropriety, the Board voted to upgrade the Applicant’s discharge, as warranted...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00140

    Original file (ND03-00140.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    My name is (Applicant). Sir, have you ever been asked to " Die for your country?" At this time, the applicant has not provided any documentation for the Board to consider.

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00560

    Original file (ND99-00560.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION There is no indication that the applicant turned himself in to the proper command representative or to a medical facility to qualify for self-referral amnesty. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00209

    Original file (ND03-00209.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-00209 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 20021122, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. At this time, the applicant has not provided any documentation for the Board to consider. Other than the above exceptions, drug abuse must be processed using administrative board procedures (MILPERSMAN 1910-404) with Under Other Than Honorable (OTH) being the least favorable characterization of service considered.