Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-01138
Original file (ND04-01138.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-AMAN, USN
Docket No. ND04-01138

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20040708. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. 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 20041222. 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/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-146, formerly Article 3630620.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

 No issues were submitted by the Applicant.

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)     960829 - 961126  COG
         Active: USN                        961127 - 000326  HON

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 000327               Date of Discharge: 020524

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 02 01 27
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 22                          Years Contracted: 6

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 35

 Highest Rate: AMS3

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 4.00 (4)    Behavior: 2.75 (4)                OTA: 3.53

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: CGMUC, NAVY”E”, GCM, NDSM, AFEM, SSDR(2), REM

 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 :

000327:  Reenlisted at San Diego, CA for 6 years.

 020417:  NAVDRUGLAB SAN DIEGO, CA, reported Applicant’s urine sample, received 020411, tested positive for [THC].

020507:  Applicant refused to be screened by Medical Officer for an evaluation for drug dependency.

020507:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 112a: Wrongful use of marijuana.
Award: Forfeiture of $734.00 pay per month for 2 months, reduction to E-3. No indication of appeal in the record.
020507:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.

020507:  Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights except the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation.
020508:  Commander, Electronic Attack Wing, U.S. Pacific Fleet recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.

020513:  Commanding Officer, Naval Air Station Whidbey Island authorized 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 20020524 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).

 The Applicant submitted no issues for consideration by the Board. 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 his service to his country. Normally, to permit relief, an inequity or impropriety must have existed during the period of enlistment in question. No such inequity or impropriety 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, or 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 33, effective 16 Jul 2001 until 21 Aug 2002, Article 1910-146 (formerly 3630620), Separation by Reason of Misconduct - Drug Abuse.

B. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part II, AUTHORITY/POLICY FOR DEPARTMENTAL DISCHARGE REVIEW.

C. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part V, Para 502, Propriety .

D. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part V, Para 503, Equity .

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 “ http://Boards.law.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:

                  Secretary of the Navy Council of Review Boards
                   Attn: Naval Discharge Review Board
                   720 Kennon Street SE Rm 309
                  Washington Navy Yard DC 20374-5023




Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-01303

    Original file (ND04-01303.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. The NDRB is not authorized to change reenlistment codes. 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.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501204

    Original file (ND0501204.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 20020705, the Applicant was so discharged. As such, the Board voted to change the Applicant’s characterization of service to general (under honorable conditions) and his narrative reason for separation to “Secretarial Authority.” Relief granted. When the service of a member of the U.S. Navy has met the standard for acceptable conduct and performance, it is appropriate to characterize that service as honorable.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00524

    Original file (ND03-00524.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 20040114. 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 Applicant’s issue is without merit.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-01402

    Original file (ND04-01402.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    020422: CNMPC directed the Applicant's honorable discharge by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse (use). 020507: Applicant discharged. The NDRB is authorized, however, to consider post-service factors to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00161

    Original file (ND00-00161.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 990125 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to drug abuse (use) (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).The applicant introduced no decisional issues for consideration by the Board. PART IV - INFORMATION FOR THE APPLICANT If...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-01055

    Original file (ND04-01055.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation The Applicant did not submit any additional documentation for the Board’s consideration of his case. As of this time, the Applicant has not provided any documentation for the Board to consider. 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 | 2005_Navy | ND0500557

    Original file (ND0500557.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    000525: An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence and by unanimous vote, found that the Applicant had committed misconduct due to drug abuse, that the misconduct warranted separation, and recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions. 000731: DD-214: Applicant discharged under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse. After a review of all of the available evidence in the Applicant’s case, the administrative...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00813

    Original file (ND04-00813.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant’ s DD Form 214 (Member 4) PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: USNR (DEP) 010117 - 010715 COG Active: None Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 010716 Date of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500714

    Original file (ND0500714.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions). Recommend discharge under Other Than Honorable condition.”011114: COMPHIBGRU THREE directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse. As of this time, the Applicant has not provided any documentation for the Board to consider.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500159

    Original file (ND0500159.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION 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.