Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00769
Original file (ND04-00769.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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




ex-CTMSN, USN
Docket No. ND04-00769

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20040408. 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 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 20041029. 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 considered 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. “If we don’t learn from the mistakes we make, there is no reason for making them. I have learned from my mistake and I am on a positive and educational track. I will be attending college for a Nursing degree, and I am so very passionate in helping other people. For my own self and for the good memories I share of the Navy, I am requesting that my discharge be changed to general.”

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)     000226 - 000404  COG
         Active: None

Period of Service Under Review :

Date of Enlistment: 000405               Date of Discharge: 010523

Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 01 01 19
         Inactive: None

Age at Entry: 19                          Years Contracted: 4 (24 months extension)

Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 70

Highest Rate: CTMSN

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance: 3.00 (1)    Behavior: 1.00 (1)                OTA: 2.00

Military Decorations: None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: None

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 :

010423:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92, violation of UCMJ, Article 107 (2 specs), violation of UCMJ, Article 112A. All charges dismissed. [Extracted from Commanding Officer’s letter dated 020514.]

010514:  Applicant offered drug abuse rehabilitation outpatient treatment program and declined assignment to the program.

010514:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.

010514:  Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights.

010514:  Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse. Commanding Officer’s comments (verbatim): Due to CTMSN H_’s (Applicant’s) admitted drug use and possession of a controlled substance within the barracks, I strongly recommend that she be separated from the naval service by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse, and that her characterization of service be other than honorable.

010517:  COMNAVREG NE GROTON CT 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 20010523 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. There is credible evidence in the record that the Applicant used illegal drugs. Drug abuse warranted processing for separation. Separation under these conditions generally results in characterization of service under other than honorable conditions. Relief denied.

The Applicant’s discharge characterization accurately reflects her service to her country. Normally, to permit relief, an inequity or impropriety must have existed during the period of enlistment in question. No such inequity or impropriety occurred 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, 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, an employment record, documentation of community service, certification of non-involvement with civil authorities and evidence of a substance free lifestyle, are examples of verifiable documents that should have been provided to receive consideration for relief, based on post-service conduct. The Applicant’s evidence of post-service conduct was found not to mitigate her misconduct sufficient to warrant an upgrade to her discharge. Relief denied.

The Applicant is reminded that she remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of her 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 31, dated 20 Feb 01, effective 12 Feb 2001 until 15 Jul 2001, 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 | ND03-01319

    Original file (ND03-01319.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, and also advised that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) does not travel. Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events : 001030: UA from USS SHREVEPORT (LPD-12) 0630,...

  • 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 | 2003_Navy | ND03-00543

    Original file (ND03-00543.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. No indication of appeal in the record.010513: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse as evidenced by NAVDRUGLAB Jacksonville FL message 091807Z Mar 01 and your NJP of 010508.010514: Applicant advised of his rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00755

    Original file (ND01-00755.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00755 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010514, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to General/under Honorable conditions. After a review of the Former Service Members (FSM) DD Form 293 Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States and all of the evidence assembled for review, we continue to note the contentions as set forth on the application by the appellant of an...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00094

    Original file (ND04-00094.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions). Outstanding post-service conduct, 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, is considered. At this time, the applicant has not provided sufficient documentation of post service character and conduct to mitigate the misconduct...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-01109

    Original file (ND01-01109.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-01109 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010821, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. The Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing opportunities to further one’s education or to allow an individual the opportunity to receive veteran’s benefits, as requested in the issue. In the applicant’s case the Board could discern no impropriety or inequity and therefore...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00170

    Original file (ND02-00170.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00170 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 011213, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. Documentation Only the service and medical records were reviewed, as the applicant did not provide additional documentation for the Board to consider. Award: Forfeiture of $242 per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duty for 14 days, reduction to E-1 (suspended for 6 months).

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00412

    Original file (ND00-00412.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND00-00412 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 000210, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. I ask please grant me this upgrade so that I can get a good job and take care of my family. At this time, the applicant has not provided any documentation of good character and conduct.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00249

    Original file (ND01-00249.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 Sixty-eight pages from applicant's service record PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: USN 920826 - 960806 HON Inactive: USNR (DEP) 920821 - 920825 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 960807 Date of Discharge: 980410 Length of Service (years, months,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00040

    Original file (ND00-00040.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).In the applicant’s issue 1, the Board determined this issue is without merit. The NDRB reviews the propriety (did the Navy follow its own rules in processing the applicant for discharge) and equity (did the applicant receive a discharge characterization in keeping with Navy guidance or was the characterization...