Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00218
Original file (ND04-00218.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-ETSN, USN
Docket No. ND04-00218

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20031119. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. The Applicant requests a personal appearance hearing before the board in the Washington National Capital Region. The Applicant listed civilian counsel as the representative on the DD Form 293. In the acknowledgement letter, the Applicant was informed that the board first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing.
Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20040728. After a thorough review of the available 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:

1. “I was erroneously discharged from Active Naval service for the use of a prescription medication listed in my missing medical records. Some of which I was able to retrieve. The records were lost at Travis Air Force Base.”

 2. “Dear Sir:

At the advice of my attorneys I am enclosing a sample of the medications that were legally prescribed to me. I was charged based on the results of a urinalysis conducted at Travis Air Force Base. The hospital has these records if needed at a formal hearing.

Sincerely,
R_ A_ B_ ( Applicant )
Enclosure (1)

(social security number deleted)

Postscript

On a more personal note I am asking the board to recognize the over five and one half years of exemplary services to the United States Navy. My contract was broken by the government. This was because of a guilty verdict at an NJP hearing that lasted less then ten minutes while I was under duress. I had no legal counsel present which was suggested to be waived by the command as outlined in the supporting documents I’ve enclosed. As a former sailor I fully understand the ZERO TOLERANCE policy and have read extensively on its application and meaning. As the records will indicated should a hearing be necessary the amphetamine substance(s) that were legally prescribed to me were not intended for recreational or detrimental purposes. My current counsel has consulted with physicians in which it was discovered that certain individuals can develop tolerances to these classes of medicines. That is what set off the presumptive positive urinalysis. I mentioned I was already reduced in rank and pay as well as discharged for this. I am not requesting back pay, re-entry, attorney fees, etc. or any other type of reprisal at this level if the board has the authority to change the discharge codes as outlined on page one of this letter. I will not (even though it would be a mute point) irresponsibly surrender certified evidence and be forced in to a double jeopardy situation. Please review my records if you feel otherwise and we can proceed to the next step. Otherwise, in our opinion, it would be in the best interest of the United States Government along with me and family to handle this at the lowest level possible. If the board is unable to make a determination I will consider providing additional supporting evidence on a limited basis. The other option would mean an advance to the next level of authority.”
Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Letter requesting a review board, dated November 11, 2003. (fourth request)
Letter requesting a review board, dated October 16, 2003. (third request)
Applicant’s DD Form 214 (member 4 and member 1)
Response Letter from Senator R_ S_, dated May 5, 2003.
Applicant’s evaluation, reported date June 15, 2002 (2 pages)
Letter of recommendation from Ground Electronic Maintenance Officer, dated May 12, 2000.
Request for correction from Applicant, dated February 3, 2003.
Letter from Navy Personnel Command, dated February 18, 2003.
Chronological record of medical care, dated July 23, 2002.
Request #2 for correction, dated March 5, 2005.
Information on how to request for corrections.
Copy of Certified mail receipt. (5 pages of copies)
Report of medical history, DD Form 2807-1. (3 pages)
Reference audiogram, DD Form 2215E.
Chronological record of medical care, dated August 19, 2002.
Chronological record of HIV Testing, dated August 19, 2002.
Applicant’s adult immunization record.
Report of medical examination, dated August 23, 2002. (3 pages)
Request pertaining to military records, received by clerk on February 21, 2003.
Applicant’s travel certificate, dated prepared September 12, 2002.
Applicant’s administrative discharge.

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     970314 - 970528  COG
         Active: USN                        None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 970529               Date of Discharge: 020916

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 05 03 18
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 23                          Years Contracted: 4 (24 months extension)

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 87

 Highest Rate: ET3

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 2.50 (2)    Behavior: 3.00 (2)                OTA: 3.36

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: GCM, NDSM, MUC, SPR, ERM

 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 1910-146, formerly 3630620.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

020812:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Absent himself from duty from 0530, 020807 to 1500. 020807, violation of UCMJ, Article 112a: Wrongful use of methamphetamines.
Award: Forfeiture of $840.00 per month for 2 months, reduction to ETSN. No indication of appeal in the record.

 020816:  NAVDRUGLAB, San Diego, CA, reported Applicant’s urine sample, received 020812, tested positive for Methamphetamine.

020816:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.
020816:  Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug use. Commanding Officer’s comments: ETSN B_ (Applicant) is being -recommended for administrative separation for drug abuse (testing positive for methamphetamines). Several months prior to his positive drug test result, ETSN B_ (Applicant’s) chain of command expressed concerns about his increasingly erratic behavior. In addition, his personal appearance and military bearing became progressively worse. In the, following weeks, a series of events followed which prompted the Command into taking ETSN B_ (Applicant) to TAFB for evaluation. On July 17, he was found on the floor of the men’s toilet at the Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS) Sacramento undressed, dazed, and incoherent. He was evaluated at TAFB and stayed there until his release the following week. Subsequently, ETSN B_ (Applicant) started having problems arriving to work on time and was eventually counseled by his supervisor for chronic tardiness. When he failed to show up for work on 7 August 2002, a recruiter sent to his apartment found him dazed, ragged, and with only a vague comprehension of the time of the day. After finally reporting for work at 1500 later that day, the Command, after consulting with a mental health provider at TAFB, decided that it was in the member’s best interest to be evaluated again by mental health provider on 7 August 2002. It was also on this date that the Command received the results of the laboratory tests that were conducted on ETSN B_ (Applicant) during his previous hospital admittance. His urine sample taken on 17 July 2002 tested positive for amphetamines and methamphetamines. As a result, he was taken to Captain’s Mast on 12 August 2002 where he was found guilty of violating the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 86 (Unauthorized Absence) and Article 112a (Wrongful use of a controlled substance). He was awarded a forfeiture of 1/2 months pay (2 months) and reduced in rate to E-3.

020717:  Applicant went to Travis Air Force Base for mental health evaluation.

020807:  Applicant went to Travis Air Force Base for mental health evaluation

020906:  Commander, Navy Recruiting Command directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug use.

Parts of Applicant’s discharge package missing from service record.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20020916 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to drug abuse (A). In the absence of a complete discharge package, the Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (B), 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 (C and D).

Issue 1. 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 taking validly proscribed mediation which caused the Applicant to test positive for illegal drugs. The Applicant’s allegation, that he was using prescription medication listed in his medical records, does not refute the presumption of regularity in this case. 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.

Issue 2. When the service of a member of the U.S. Navy has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service as honorable. An Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge is warranted when significant negative aspects of a member's conduct or performance of duty outweigh the positive aspects of the member's military record. The Applicant’s service was marred by nonjudicial punishment proceedings for two violations of the UCMJ for violations of Article 86, for unauthorized absence, and Article 112a for illegal substance use. The Applicant’s contentions, that he was under duress and waived legal counsel at his nonjudicial punishment do not mitigate the misconduct for which he was discharged. The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflects his willful failure to meet the requirements of his contract with the U.S. Navy and falls far short of that required for an upgrade of his characterization of service. Further, the summary of service clearly documents that misconduct due to drug abuse was the reason the Applicant was discharged. No other Narrative Reason for Separation could more clearly describe why the Applicant was discharged. Relief is not warranted.

Concerning a change in reenlistment code, the NDRB has no authority to change reenlistment codes or make recommendations to permit reentry into the naval service or any other of the Armed Forces. The NDRB has no jurisdiction over reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Navy. Reenlistment policy of the naval service is promulgated by the Commander, Navy Recruiting Command, 5722 Integrity Drive, Bldg 784, Millington, TN 38054. Neither a less than fully honorable discharge nor an unfavorable "RE" code is, in itself, a bar to reenlistment. A request for a waiver is normally done only during the processing of a formal application for enlistment through a recruiter.

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 documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments or any other evidence related 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 . The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), re-issued October 2002, effective 22 Aug 2002 until Present, 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

  • USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-01463

    Original file (MD03-01463.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I believe my discharge was based on the only misconduct in my record. 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 the Applicant’s discharge characterization accurately reflects his service to his country. The Applicant is reminded he remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received at the NDRB...

  • USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0501263

    Original file (MD0501263.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Hello, my name is J_ R_ B_(Applicant). Recently I have spoken to various recruiters, and I am ready to volunteer my services in Iraq, Afghanistan or wherever the Corps sees fit.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00934

    Original file (ND04-00934.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Decision A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20041103. 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).Issues 1-3: The Applicant states his discharge was based on one isolated incident in “46 months.” Despite a...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00801

    Original file (ND02-00801.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Performance Information Memo from Head, Electronics Training Dept, FTC, San Diego, dated September 10, 1999 Applicant's Military Course Summary Applicant's Enlisted Performance Evaluation (00FEB09 to 01OCT25)Copy of DD Form 214 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: USNR (DEP) 000107 -...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500015

    Original file (ND0500015.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, no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the Applicant’s service was discovered by the NDRB. No indication of appeal in the record.020816: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-01051

    Original file (ND04-01051.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions). I ask you to review the evidence and please change the conditions of my discharge.” 030109: Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00905

    Original file (ND03-00905.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of discharge.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00173

    Original file (ND04-00173.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Decision A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20040720. No indication of appeal in the record.880914: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and misconduct due to drug abuse.880914: Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights.880927: Medical evaluation for...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600003

    Original file (ND0600003.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION No indication of appeal in the record.021017: Applicant to unauthorized absence at 0530 on 021017.021018: Applicant from unauthorized absence at 0730 on 021018 (1 day/surrendered).021021: NAVDRUGLAB, San Diego, CA reported Applicant’s urine sample, received 021016, tested positive for Amphetamine,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00920

    Original file (ND04-00920.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant)) discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident in 65 months of service with no other adverse action.The discharge is improper because the Applicant’s pre-service civilian activity, properly listed on his enlistment documents, was used in the discharge proceedings. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant’ s DD Form 214 Texas Real Estate Commission...