Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00568
Original file (ND04-00568.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-FA, USNR-R
Docket No. ND04-00568

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20040225. The Applicant requests the reason for the discharge be changed to voluntary separation. 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 20041103. 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 and reason for discharge was discovered by the NDRB. The Board’s vote was unanimous that the reason for the discharge shall not change. The discharge shall remain: GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-130 (formerly 3620280).



PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

1.       “I am writing this letter in regards to the discharge I received on 10/27/1999. I was discharged for apparent drug usage. At the time of my discharge, I had already realized that the Navy Reserves was something that I really did not want to do, so I took this as my window of opportunity to be released, so I chose not to fight it at the time. I have to say that drugs are something I have never been involved with, and never will be. I regret not asking for an appeal on this issue at the time. I have to say that the drug tests must have somehow gotten mixed up, because mine should have come back negative. At the time, I was a college student at the University of Arizona. I have since then transferred to the University of Nevada, Reno, and just graduated in May of 2003 with a Bachelor’s in Science. I don’t really know much about people who do drugs, but I would almost imagine that someone engaging in those types of activities would not be able to attend college, let alone graduate. A window of opportunity has opened up for me recently, something that I have waited for all of my life, the chance to become a Reno Police Officer. But unfortunately, this type of release from any branch of the military is going to be the reason why I cannot do this. So I am writing this letter to request that the comments on my Administrative Remarks 10-81 be removed, changed, or the records be sealed. I do apologize for not making this request at the time, but due to my eyesight, I never thought I would have another opportunity to become a Police Officer. So I ask again that you please change the status of my discharge, and allow a woman to become something that has been the most important career move in my life, and to obtain a life long dream. Please refer to enclosed documents, I thank you in advance.”




Documentation
In addition to the service record (there was no discharge package), the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:

 Applicant’s letter
Letter of recommendation
Letter from S_ W_
Letter of employment
Diploma from University of Nevada Reno

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: None
         Active: USA                        850705 - 850821  ELS

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 990831               Date of Discharge: 991027

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 00 01 27
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 35                          Years Contracted: 8

Education Level: 13                        AFQT: 54

 Highest Rate: FA

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: NMF*                 Behavior: NMF             OTA: NMF

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: None

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

* No Marks Found

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-130 (formerly 3620280).

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :
991027:  Commanding Officer, Naval and Marine Corps Reserve Center, Tucson directed the Applicant's discharge with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of entry level separation due to drug abuse.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19991027 with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse (A). After a thorough review of the available records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (B and C). The presumption of regularity of governmental affairs was applied by the Board in this case in the absence of a complete discharge package (D).

 Issue 1: The NDRB, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge, will change the reason for discharge if such a change is warranted. The summary of service clearly documents that drug abuse was the reason the Applicant was discharged. No other Narrative Reason for Separation could more clearly describe why the Applicant was discharged. To change the Narrative Reason for Separation would be inappropriate. Relief denied.

The Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment opportunities as requested in the issue. Regulations limit the Board’s review to a determination on the propriety and equity of the discharge. In the Applicant’s case, the Board could discern no impropriety or inequity and therefore considered the Applicant’s discharge proper and equitable.

There 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. E vidence 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 Board determined that the documentation submitted by the Applicant does not mitigate her misconduct while on active duty.

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 18, effective 12 Dec 97 until 12 Jun 2001, Article 1910-130 (formerly 3620280), Separation by Reason of Defective Enlistments and Inductions - Erroneous Enlistment.

B. 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.

C. 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.

D. 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.


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 | 2001_Navy | ND01-00442

    Original file (ND01-00442.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00442 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010223, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to Honorable. Documentation Only the applicant's service and medical records were reviewed, as the applicant did not provide additional documentation for the Board to consider. Assessment: Headaches Plan: Continue Tylenol as before, Neuro consult, Pt educated.980819: Medical evaluation (Branch Medical Clinic, Great Lakes): Entry...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00199

    Original file (ND02-00199.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00199 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020107, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 001016 with an entry level separation (uncharacterized) for defective enlistment and induction due to erroneous enlistment - drug abuse (A). The applicant is reminded that he remains eligible for a personal...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00324

    Original file (ND01-00324.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 991230 with an Uncharacterized service for Defective enlistment and induction due to Erroneous enlistment (A). The Board determined, the medical exam was performed by competent medical authority and the applicant was diagnosed with dysthymic disorder. PART IV - INFORMATION FOR THE APPLICANT If you believe that the decision in your case is unclear, not responsive to the issues you...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00749

    Original file (ND02-00749.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 010829 with an uncharacterized service (entry level separation) for defective enlistment and induction due to erroneous enlistment (A). 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: An Entry Level Separation (ELS) is not a dishonorable...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00389

    Original file (ND02-00389.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    My undesirable discharge was improper because it was based on a waiverble pre-existing medical condition that had in no way any affect on the pain I was seen for. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214 Six pages from Applicant's service record PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: None Inactive: USNR (DEP) 980727 -...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00204

    Original file (ND01-00204.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Notification Letter to Applicant dtd Oct 6, 1999 Recruit Mental Health Substance Use Evaluation dtd Sep 23, 1999 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: None Inactive: None Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 990824 Date of Discharge: 991013 Length of Service (years, months,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00303

    Original file (ND01-00303.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 states: “My discharge was due to me being a scared 19 yr. old. The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 18, effective 12 Dec 97 until PRESENT, Article 1910-130 (formerly 3620280), Separation by Reason of Defective Enlistments and Inductions - Erroneous Enlistment. PART IV...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01331

    Original file (ND02-01331.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    990712: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with an general (under honorable conditions) by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to erroneous enlistment as evidenced by personality disorder and convenience of the government due to physical or mental conditions as evidenced by a cyclothymic disorder. The Applicant’s service record did not contain any unusual circumstances during his less than three months in the military to warrant a change of discharge to...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00156

    Original file (ND00-00156.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    My service record will reflect much involvement within my unit. 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), but that the DD214 incorrectly listed the reason for discharge as Personality Disorder.The applicant states in issue 1 that his “ The applicant was properly and equitably discharged for erroneous enlistment based on the fact that he would not have...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00859

    Original file (ND04-00859.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) first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. 020219: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to erroneous enlistment as...