Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00008
Original file (ND04-00008.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-HN, USNR
Docket No. ND04-00008

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20030926. 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 listed Private Representation as representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20040628. 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/IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT MARTIAL, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630650.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

No issues were submitted by the Applicant.

Issues submitted by Applicant’s counsel/representative ( PRIVATE REPRESENTATIVE)

“Dear Sir,

This letter is to request a review of the discharge under other than honorable conditions issued by the USN on or about 9 June 1995. The events surrounding this discharge arc suspect and deserve a second review by your board

As a highly decorated combat veteran of the Vietnam conflict and a former company commander of a 378 man Brigade HHC that included DOD and DA civilians, I firmly believe the command chain from his squad leader up to and including the Admiral in charge of the station were derelict in the performance of their duties. Additionally, all the people in the line of responsibility are technically responsible for destruction of government property in that the government spent money on training a combat medic, who having performed his duties with the United States Marines on the Haiti operation in an exemplary manner as well as his other assignments with the Navy, was discharged without adequate counseling by his commander or any physical proof, thereby wasting valuable government resources. After seeing the number of names on the investigation of personnel who allegedly used illegal drugs in the unit I would seriously consider the commander, his CPO, the section leaders and others in the chain of command grossly negligent in their duties. Were letters of reprimand placed in their personnel folders? Were they called in for explanations for the high usage of drugs wider their command?

While commander of HHC, lst Support Brigade, I had several young soldiers who wanted to get out immediately after their tour of combat arid return home. Our mission in the FRG was a critical mission and required every soldier possible. My First Sergeant, Chaplain, Chaplains Assistant, JAG Maj. C___, my Brigade Commander, Colonel T___, and myself worked with each of these soldiers to prevent them from making a serious error that would follow them the rest of their life. We were able to save each of these young soldiers from making a serious mistake. And it was worth the time and effort we spent in counseling them since we saved the United States Army several hundred thousands in training expenses that would have been lost if we allowed these young troops to depart from service prior to their ETS.

Regarding HN Sadler, the medical test did not reveal any drugs in his system and the room search did not reveal any drugs in his quarters. In fact, he requested his statement be withdrawn. It was originally and foolishly made to get an early release from the Navy. The request was rejected out of hand by the JAG and should be investigated. He made this statement as a last resort since lie had requested several times a transfer out of his duty assignment to the “BUDS” where he felt useful, part of a team effort and where his skills were appreciated. He had just returned from the Haiti operation where he worked as a combat medic with the Marines. He accompanied combat patrols on a regular basis where he treated injured Marines while performing his duties in a flawless manner. Your own investigation says there is not enough information or evidence to sustain prosecution under UCMJ proceedings and is confirmed by the first endorsement of the Commander, Naval Medical Center, Portsmouth.

Justin Sadler has never used any illegal drugs. He completed his computer systems engineer training and has worked for both of my companies as Vice President of Sales and Training. He set up the LAN system and Network operations to hook our plants together in different states. Additionally, he landed a $7,532,000.00 contract in 2001 for our Illinois plant. To save money he has lived at home and has been constantly under my observation.
He is currently in the Arkansas National Guard, the 39th Support Battalion and is working full time with the guard. The 39th is preparing to deploy to Iraq in October of this year, and Justin will be going over as a combat medic with “C” Company, the Medical Unit for the 39th. He is looking forward to this deployment and enjoys the military lifestyle. He plans to apply for Warrant Officer Helicopter School after his return from Iraq. He has grown up in the aviation industry and has flown our personal fixed wing aircraft and helicopter on a regular basis when we were conducting aerial patrol operations on our DEA contracts.

J___ attends church regularly with us, gives music lessons to young kids, assists in providing/serving food and cooking the meals for the Lighthouse Homeless Shelter one Saturday per month with us. He is an intelligent, artistic, talented and gracious young man.

The discharge the navy has placed on him is unwarranted and undeserved. Had his commander taken the time to work with him and others under his command none of this would be necessary. I would ask that this Board carefully review this discharge and grant an upgrade to allow Justin to excel in his life. Being young and naive in the ways of the military, listening to his equally young and naive Navy friends on how to get out quickly, and not having the type of command structure necessary for a successful Navy unit or a successful Navy career has all combined to cast a very negative shadow on Justin’s life. It does not reflect his excellent service while on active duty with the United States Navy nor does it reflect accurately on his life since his release from duty with the United States Navy.

Please upgrade his discharge immediately in order to get this behind him. Thank you for your time, interest, and consideration in this important matter.”



Documentation
In addition to the service record, NO DISCHARGE PACKAGE AVAILABLE, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Letter of Recommendation dated September 26, 2003
Memorandum from Department of Veterans Affairs (Letter of Appreciation) dated August 17, 1994
Copy of Outstanding Physical Fitness Award dated October 1994
Copy of Certificate of Excellence (Microsoft Certified Professional)
Copy of Certificate of Excellence (Microsoft Certified Professional & Internet)
Copy of Certificate of Excellence (Microsoft Certified Professional System Engineer)
Copy of Report of Medical Examination (2 pages)
Copy of Report of Medical History (2 pages)
Letter from Applicant dated January 9, 2004

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     None
         Active: USN                        None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 940126               Date of Discharge: 950630

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 01 04 23
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 20                          Years Contracted: 8 (24 months extension)

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 56

 Highest Rate: HN

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.40 (2)    Behavior: 3.40 (2)                OTA: 3.60

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM, NEM

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT MARTIAL, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630650.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

940208:  Commenced 36 months of active duty under the Airman Apprenticeship       Training program.

NO DISCHARGE PACKAGE AVAILABLE.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19950630 under other than honorable conditions in lieu of a trial by court-martial (A and B). In the absence of a discharge package, the Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (C) and, after a thorough review of the available records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, found that the discharge was proper and equitable (D and E).

Issue 1. The Applicant contends that he never used drugs and admitted usage for the sole purpose of obtaining a discharge from the Navy in order to return home. The NDRB recognizes that serving in the U.S. Navy is challenging. Our country is fortunate to have men and women willing to ensure the hardships and sacrifices required in order to serve their country. The Applicant’s self-admission to drug use is punishable under the UCMJ, Article 112a as “wrongful use of a controlled substance”. The evidence of record did not show that the Applicant was either not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions. The NRDB found that the Applicant’s service was equitably characterized. 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 or any other evidence relating to his discharge at that time. Representation at a personal appearance hearing is recommended but not required.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 9, effective
22 Jul 94 until 2 Oct 96, Article 3630650, PROCEDURES FOR PROCESSING ENLISTED PERSONNEL FOR SEPARATION IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURTMARTIAL.

B. A punitive bad conduct discharge may be adjudged for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article [e.g., 86, unauthorized absence for a period more than 30 days] upon conviction by a Special or General Court-Martial, in accordance with the Manual for Courts-Martial].

C. 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.

D. 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.

E. 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 | ND99-00686

    Original file (ND99-00686.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND99-00686 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 990427, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to Honorable. The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. Specification 3: In that HN D_ L. E_ did, at the Naval Hospital Pensacola, Florida, on or about April 1995, commit an indecent assault upon K_ R. G_ a person not his wife, by sliding his hands up and down her leg, with the intent to gratify his lust or...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01053

    Original file (ND03-01053.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-01053 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030530. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable or general/under honorable conditions. I went before a Chief’s board and told them

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00043

    Original file (ND02-00043.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00043 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 011004, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable, general/under honorable conditions, or entry level separation or uncharacterized, to include changing the reenlistment code. Pt denied any symptoms of depression or history of suicidal/homicidal ideation. The Board determined that the applicant’s post service documentation did not sufficiently demonstrate the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00260

    Original file (ND00-00260.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND00-00260 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 991216, requested that the characterization of service on the 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).In the applicant’s issue 1, the Board determined this issue is without merit. The applicant states he had family problems (his mother’s...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00605

    Original file (ND03-00605.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-00605 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030303. We refer this case to the Board for their careful and compassionate consideration and request the Applicant’s discharge be reviewed for upgrading his general discharge to honorable discharge.” Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214 Employment/Character Reference Letter dated February...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00948

    Original file (ND02-00948.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00948 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020618, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. I requested legal representative or counsel and was refused legal representative or counsel before, or after mass at any time while attached to the ship. 890622: COMNAVMILPERSCOM WASHINGTON DC directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01414

    Original file (ND03-01414.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. Upgrade of Other Than Honorable discharge to that of Honorable based on post-service activities and character information submitted in support of equitable relief.2. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 20010608 under other than honorable...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-01066

    Original file (ND01-01066.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214 Letter from Applicant (2pgs) PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: USN None Inactive: USNR (DEP) None Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 931124 Date of Discharge: 980326 Length of Service (years, months, days):Active: 04 03 18 Inactive: 00 00 16 After a thorough...

  • USMC | DRB | 2002_Marine | MD02-00637

    Original file (MD02-00637.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. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 920117 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to drug abuse (A). No other narrative reason other than that of misconduct for drug use more clearly describes the circumstances surrounding the Applicant’s processing for...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01181

    Original file (ND99-01181.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): Active: None Inactive: USNR (DEP) 910819 - 920204 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 920205 Date of Discharge: 960419 Length of Service (years, months, days):Active: 04 00 15 Inactive: None PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT...