Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500618
Original file (ND0500618.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-SR, USN
Docket No. ND05-00618

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20050223. 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 he 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 did not respond.

Decision

A documentary review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20050608. 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. “So I can Receive VA Benefits. Medical and Ect.”

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Applicant’s DD Form 214
Police record check, dated February 11, 2005

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     880428 - 890109  COG
         Active: None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 890110               Date of Discharge: 900723

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 01 05 27 (Lost Time Excluded)
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 21                          Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 13                        AFQT: 24/31

 Highest Rate: SA

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: NMA*                 Behavior: NMA             OTA: NMA

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: None

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

*No marks assigned

 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 :

890406:  NAVDRUGLAB, Jacksonville, FL, reported Applicant’s urine sample, received 890330, tested positive for cocaine.


890418:  Summary Court-Martial.
         Charge: violation of the UCMJ, Article 112a:
         Specification: Wrongful use of schedule II controlled substance on 890318 until 890328, to wit: cocaine.
          Finding: to the Charge and the specification thereunder, guilty.
          Sentence: Forfeiture of $466.00, confinement for 21 days, reduction to
E-1.
          CA’s action 890424: Convening Authority approved the findings and sentence.

890411:  Drug and Alcohol Evaluation: Applicant found to be poly-drug dependent.

Undated:         Medical evaluation did not uncover any evidence of drug addiction or dependence.
890519:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse. The Applicant was notified that the least favorable characterization of service possible is under other than honorable conditions.
890519:  Applicant advised of rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27(b), elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge Board.
890726:  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.

891218:  Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse (use).

900608:  Applicant acknowledged that the Administrative Discharge Board was improperly convened on 890726 due to the fact there was no reserve commissioned officer on the board. The Applicant waived his right to a new board and elected to accept the findings and recommendations of the original board forwarded on 891218.

900719:  CNMPC directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse (use).

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19900723 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. Normally, to permit relief, an impropriety or inequity must have existed during the period of enlistment in question. No such impropriety or inequity is evident during the Applicant’s enlistment. There is credible evidence in the record that the Applicant used illegal drugs. The Applicant was convicted at summary court-martial for a violation of UCMJ Article 112a, wrongful drug use, cocaine. Regulations permit relief on equitable grounds if the Applicant’s discharge is inconsistent with standards of discipline of the Naval service. Based upon available records, nothing indicates that the Applicant’s discharge was in any way inconsistent with the standards of discipline in the United States Navy. 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. As such, relief is denied.

 The Veterans Administration determines eligibility for post-service benefits not the Naval Discharge Review Board. There is no requirement or law that grants recharacterization solely on the issue of obtaining Veterans’ benefits and this issue does not serve to provide a foundation upon which the Board can grant relief. Additionally, the Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment or educational opportunities. Regulations limit the Board’s review to a determination on the propriety and equity of the discharge.

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 (July 23, 2005). Representation at a personal appearance hearing is recommended but not required.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A. Navy Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560A), Change 11, effective
14 Jun 90 until 14 Aug 91, Article 3630620, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED MEMBERS BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT DUE TO 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 | ND04-00243

    Original file (ND04-00243.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I love my country and would gladly serve again if I could. I strongly recommend that he be discharged from the Navy and that the characterization of his discharge be other than honorable.900105: CNMPC directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse (use). The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflects his willful failure to meet the requirements of his contract...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00076

    Original file (ND99-00076.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    For these reasons and the fact that this service member has become an administrative burden to this command, I strongly recommend MSSR (applicant) be separated from the naval Service with a General Discharge.891212: CNMPC directed the applicant's discharge under honorable conditions (general) by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse (use). PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 891219 with a GENERAL discharge because of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00267

    Original file (ND99-00267.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 980224 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 characterization of discharge was improper due to the applicant’s self-referral for drug use and shall be changed (C and D).The applicant introduced no decisional...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-01464

    Original file (ND04-01464.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Decision A documentary review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20041221. The Applicant's service record did not contain any unusual circumstances during his less than four months in the military to warrant a change of discharge to "honorable." 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 | 2000_Navy | ND00-00621

    Original file (ND00-00621.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Navy proceeded with the discharge and I was given a general discharge under Other than Honorable conditions. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 981102 under Other Than Honorable conditions for misconduct due to Drug abuse (Use) (A). 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 | 2002_Navy | ND02-00990

    Original file (ND02-00990.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant's DD Form 214 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: USNR (DEP) 880512 - 880516 COG Active: None Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 880517 Date of Discharge: 890804 Length of Service (years, months, days):Active: 01 02 16 Does not exclude lost time Inactive: None No...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00674

    Original file (ND00-00674.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT ex-SR, USN Docket No. Concerning a change in reenlistment code, the NDRB has no authority to change reenlistment codes or make recommendations to permit reentry into the naval service or any other of the Armed Forces. Relief is not warranted.The applicant’s third issue states: “Denial of selected career because of honest response to pre-enlistment questions.” The NDRB found this issue non decisional.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-01274

    Original file (ND04-01274.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review. The Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment opportunities as requested in the issue.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00657

    Original file (ND04-00657.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, ONLY PARTIAL DISCHARGE PACKAGE AVAILABLE, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Character Reference Letter from R_ R_, House of Representative State of Tennessee, dated December 1, 2003 Copy of G.I. The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00389

    Original file (ND01-00389.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    890119: 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 honorable conditions (general). In the applicant’s issue 2, the applicant states that he was brought to NJP for possession of a butterfly knife, which he explains “was a gift I brought in the Philipines on the way back on the ship.” The Board...