Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500018
Original file (ND0500018.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-MM3, USN
Docket No. ND05-00018

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20040929. 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 20050118. 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. Applicant indicated issues were presented and attached to the application. None were found.
Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Performance planning and development form
FBI letter of appreciation
Letter of thanks from J_ H_
Letter of thanks from E_ B_-C_, Chief of Police

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     940825 - 950117  COG
         Active: USN                        950118 – 970729  HON

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 970730               Date of Discharge: 980316

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 00 07 16
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 21                          Years Contracted: 6

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 93

 Highest Rate: MM2

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: NMF*                 Behavior: NMF             OTA: NMF

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

*No marks found for the period under review

 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 :

970924:  NAVDRUGLAB, Great Lakes, IL, reported Applicant’s urine sample, received 970915, tested positive for THC.

971016:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 112a: Wrongful use of marijuana.
         Award: Restriction and extra duty for 45 days (deferred for 15 days), reduction to E-4. No indication of appeal in the record.
971016:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse as evidenced by NJP on 971016.
971016:  Applicant advised of rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge Board.
980112:  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.

980218:  Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.

980302:  COMSUBGRU TWO 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 19980316 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 introduced no decisional issues for consideration by the Board. There is credible evidence in the record that the Applicant used illegal drugs. The Board found that the Applicant’s failure to initial his urine bottle upon submission of his sample did not break the chain of custody or otherwise invalidate his sample. Drug abuse warranted processing for separation. Separation under these conditions generally results in characterization of service under other than honorable conditions. The Board found no inequity or impropriety in the conduct and findings of the Applicant’s Administrative Discharge Board. The positive aspects of the Applicant’s service do not mitigate his misconduct. Relief denied.

The Applicant’s discharge characterization accurately reflects his service to his country for the enlistment under review. 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. 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, employment record, documentation of community service, certification of non-involvement with civil authorities and credible evidence of a substance free lifestyle, are examples of verifiable documentation that may be provided to receive consideration for relief, based on post-service conduct. The Applicant’s evidence of post-service conduct was found not to mitigate his misconduct sufficient to warrant an upgrade to his discharge. 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 18, effective 12 Dec 97 to 19 May 99, 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 | 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.

  • 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 | 2005_Navy | ND0500050

    Original file (ND0500050.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. 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. 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...

  • 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 | 2003_Navy | ND03-00505

    Original file (ND03-00505.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. “An inadequate discharge is of my concern, but I feel that I have and continued to better myself as a person. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00073

    Original file (ND03-00073.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, NDRB discerned no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the applicant’s service. Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 000731 Date of Discharge: 010731 Length of Service (years, months, days):Active: 01 00 01 Inactive: None At this time, the applicant has not provided any documentation for the Board to consider.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00165

    Original file (ND03-00165.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-00165 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 20021106, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214 (Member 1) Social Security Card Employment record Letter of recommendation, dated October 14, 2002 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00195

    Original file (ND03-00195.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. At this time, the applicant has not provided any documentation for the Board to consider. Therefore, no relief will be granted.The applicant is reminded that he is eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00513

    Original file (ND99-00513.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND99-00513 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 990301, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 980519 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to drug abuse (use) (A). The applicant’s first issue (equity) states the discharge authority did not consider his 33 months...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00424

    Original file (ND00-00424.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    991021: 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 general (under honorable conditions). The attached documents along with my service record will that my general discharge should be upgraded.” The NDRB found the applicant’s issue without merit. After review of the applicant’s record the NDRB found,...