Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-01335
Original file (ND04-01335.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-BMSR, USN
Docket No. ND04-01335

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20040824. 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. In the acknowledgement letter, the Applicant was informed that she was approaching the 15-year point for review by this Board and was encouraged to attend a personal appearance hearing in the Washington, D.C. area. The Applicant informed the Board to continue with the record review.

 Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20041122. 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 - Drug abuse (Use), authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630620.

 .



PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

 Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

 1. “To: Naval Review Board

Please accept supporting documents in reviewing my case for a discharge upgrade. As you can tell from documents 1-3, During my tour in the Navy I was a team player while attached to the U.S.S. Dixon. While apart of the deck department, I did attend to my day to day responsibilities as a seaman. I was apart of a team that did receive the Battle “E” for our exceptional skills and crane operations. The second award received was for outstanding performance while still attached to the U.S.S Dixon and my team in the deck department. I was a good sailor and I worked hard to belong to something great. As time went on I did make a mistake that cost me a lot. Instead of continuing to stay close and focused on the real importance of my tour, I experimented with something that was not beneficial to me or the people that cared about me. I was going through some minor female problems at the time and was trying to solve the problem the wrong way. Several years after my release from the military I became educated in Behavioral modifications, Family and cultural issues, chemical dependency and counseling. This education allowed to me understand some things that was going on with myself as wells as others that may take the wrong avenues, instead of dealing with the issues at hand. Documents 4-9 shows educations and certifications that helped me give back to those in need in the community. Because HIV/Aides was on the rise I also became educated in order to help and educate those so they would be able to deal with problem without illegal drugs. In document 5 it shows that I do have 3,280 supervised hours of work experience and this was documented the Commission of Alcohol and drug Abuse. In documents 10-11 it shows a couple of the facilities that I’ve counseled with, serving troubled youths and adults on parole. Documents 12 and 13 gives a picture of the kind of work I’m currently doing with the state, as a career consultant and I’m still providing services for individuals with different types of barriers that will help them to become self-sufficient. October 3rd, I will have been out of the Navy for fifteens years, please consider some of my accomplishments as a means of learning from my mistakes and trying to help others from making some of the same mistakes.”










 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Citation, dated October 1985 to September 1986
Citation, dated May 26 to July 19, 1988
Letter from Commanding Officer, dated July 16, 1989
Letter from Director, Houston Allied Health Careers, dated November 26, 1996
Letter to Applicant from Texas Commission on Alcohol and Drug Abuse, dated August 19, 2002
Instructors Certificates
Certificate, dated February 27, 2003
Letter of completion, dated July 9, 2001
Certificate of completion, dated June 26 through June 29, 2001
Job reference, dated April 24, 2001
Job reference, dated May 23, 2001 (2)
Job reference, undated
Letter from Texas Workforce Commission, dated April 2, 2004

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     841119 - 851027  COG
         Active: None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 851028               Date of Discharge: 891003

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 03 11 06
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 25                          Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 57

 Highest Rate: BMSN

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.10 (4)    Behavior: 2.90 (4)                OTA: 3.25

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: MUC, BER

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Misconduct - Drug abuse (Use), authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630620.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

UNDATED:         Applicant briefed on Navy's policy of drug and alcohol abuse, signed by the Applicant .

890713:  NAVDRUGLAB, San Diego, CA, reported Applicant’s urine sample, received 890705, tested positive for cocaine.

890719:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 112A: Used a controlled substance on 890705, to wit: cocaine.
         Award: Forfeiture of $392 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to E-2. No indication of appeal in the record.
890724:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse as evidenced by your illegal or wrongful use of a controlled substance.
890726:  NAVDRUGLAB, San Diego, CA, reported Applicant’s urine sample, received 890719, tested positive for cocaine.

890728:  Medical evaluation for drug abuse found the Applicant not dependent. No treatment recommended.
890802:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 112A: Used a controlled substance on 890717, to wit: cocaine.
         Award: Forfeiture of $350 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to E-1. No indication of appeal in the record.
890807:  Drug and Alcohol Abuse Report: Cocaine abuse. Abuse denied. Unit sweep urinalysis 890705. Physician found Applicant not dependent and recommended separation. Commanding Officer recommended separation. Comments: Commanding Officer determined member to possess poor potential for further service and found not to be dependent.

890906:  Applicant advised of rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ, Article 27(b), elected to waive all rights .
890908:  Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.

890923:  CNMPC 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 19891003 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: A characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions is warranted when the member's conduct constitutes a significant departure from that expected of a sailor.
The Applicant’s service was marred by award of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on two occasions for violation of Article 112a of the UCMJ. 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 evidence of record does not demonstrate that the Applicant was not responsible for her conduct or that she should not be held accountable for her actions. Relief denied.

Normally, to permit relief, a error or inequity must have existed during the period of enlistment in question. No such error or inequity is evident during the Applicant’s enlistment. Relief not warranted.

The following if provided for the edification of the Applicant. The NDRB has no authority to provided additional review of this case since Applicant’s discharge occurred more than 15 years ago. The Applicant may, however, petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR), 2 Navy Annex, Washington, DC 20370-5100, concerning a change in the characterization of naval service, if she desires further review of her case.


Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A. Navy Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560A), Change 6, effective 11 Jan 89 until 13 Jun 90, Article 3630620, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED MEMBERS BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT DUE TO 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 | 2000_Navy | ND00-00374

    Original file (ND00-00374.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Decision A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 000824. 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: “During my fifteen years of service, I truly regret the mistake that I made. Navy Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560A), Change 6, effective 11 Jan 89 until 13 Jun 90, Article 3630620, SEPARATION...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00404

    Original file (ND99-00404.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 applicant received Level III treatment following her discharge, in accordance with Navy regulations for drug dependent members. The applicant has provided some documentation of good character and conduct but not sufficient enough to...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00681

    Original file (ND00-00681.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION BACK THEN I WAS STILL GUN-HO AT THE TIME AND HAD ONE MISTAKE (19 JUN 1986 EVENT) ON MY RECORD. ALSO, MY DISCHARGE WAS BASED ON ONE INCIDENT OF COCAINE USE DURING THE TIME I WAS IN THE NAVY THE MAJORITY OF EVENTS WERE THAT I WAS DRINKING WHICH IS LEGAL AND NEVER USED UNTIL THAT LAST ISSUE.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00233

    Original file (ND01-00233.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    At the time of my positive testing for cocaine, I was going through serious personal problems, my father murder the largest. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 890830, in absentia, 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00595

    Original file (ND01-00595.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00595 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010402, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. The Administrative Discharge Board found the applicant did commit a violation of UCMJ Article 112a but recommended retention due to the applicant’s service record. At this time, the applicant has not provided any documentation of good post-service character and conduct.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00461

    Original file (ND00-00461.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I was going to have my record sent to the medical board for review. 990426: Applicant to unauthorized absence 0730, 26Apr99.990504: Applicant from unauthorized absence 1045, 3May99 (7 days/surrendered).990504: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.990504: Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500541

    Original file (ND0500541.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND05-00541 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20050202. Treatment was sought out by and secured by myself for the Disease of Alcoholism resulting in 11+ years of continuous sobriety [Submitted Evidence] My Physiological/Psychological Disease of Alcoholism coupled with the stress of my bad marriage clearly inhibited my ability to serve Honorably resulting in the OTH Discharge for Misconduct (Drug Abuse). Applicant appears to be dependent on alcohol and...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00858

    Original file (ND00-00858.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND00-00858 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 000705, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. My discharge was inequitable and I don't believe I deserved the discharge I received because one incident in my 12 months of service. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00406

    Original file (ND00-00406.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    880625: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (3 Specs): UA from unit; violation of UCMJ Article 92: disobeyed a lawful written order.Award: Forfeiture of $100 per month for 2 months (suspended for 6 months), restriction and extra duty for 30 days. MMFR (Applicant)'s defense counsel states in his appeal letter that the senior member was not a line officer; that with the other ships alongside in Bahrain as well as the USS LASALLE, an 0-4 line officer could have been obtained. After a...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-01007

    Original file (ND04-01007.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND04-01007 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20040607. On February 19th 2003 IC1 P_ and I were talking about my case and he stated the restricted personnel -was doing-working for the Master o farms in BM1 L_'s office the day the urinalysis specimens were sitting in the office.I was told my time to appeal my case was nine months and I have asked for the papers but I have not received anything in the mail. As of this time, the Applicant has not provided...