Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501409
Original file (ND0501409.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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


 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

ex-SR, USNR
Docket No. ND05-01409

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20050824. The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review. The Applicant did not designate a representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20060406. 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 and reason for discharge shall not change. The discharge shall remain Under Other Than Honorable Conditions by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense.
PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

 Applicant’s issues, as stated on the attached letter:

“I respectfully request to have my discharge reviewed for the following reasons: my discharge was based on one isolated incident and I would like another opportunity to prove to my country that I can take on the responsibility to serve again as a mature, responsible adult. I believe I am in very good shape mentally and physically, with a different frame of mind than when I was younger and I acted irresponsibly.

Since my discharge, I have maintained steady employment and continued my education. I have completed my education as a computer repair technician and earned a CSR degree. Currently, I am enrolled in college working towards a Bachelors degree. While I complete my education, I continue to work full-time. Currently, I work as a Customer Service Representative for Federal Express, where I have worked for the past three years. Prior to that, I worked three years with the government as a computer support engineer/Data specialist. I have attached proof of my achievements and documents which should prove my current status as a responsible person.

I respectfully request that you review my appeal and consider that I have come a long way in the past nine years. I made a foolish mistake during my service with the U. S. Navy. It was an isolated incident which I regret having made. I am a hard-working, responsible man who is drug-free. I wish to have my under other than honorable conditions discharge changed to honorable discharge. I believe everybody is entitled to a second chance and if given that opportunity I will prove with all my might to my country and to myself that I am worthy of serving my country again. Please consider my request and if given the opportunity, I will not let you or my country down.

Respectfully,

[signed] M_ A. P_ (Applicant)”

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Applicant’s DD Form 214 (Service 2)
Notice of Rating Eligibility, U.S. Post Office, dtd July 26, 2005
Certificate of 64 credited hours from Business Technology Institute, Computer Repair Technician/CAN, dtd March 21, 2001
Report for Business & Technology Institute Student Internship Record, dtd April 2, 2001
Certificate of Three Year Service Award at FedEx, dtd February 11, 2005
Ltr of compliment from FedEx, D_ M. S_, Senior Vice President, Customer Services & Operations Support, dtd September 29, 2004
Certificate for Outstanding Score during Calibration Session, dtd July 17, 2003
Purple Passion Award, dtd October 04, 2004
Certificate, dtd Aug 13, 2004
Certificate, dtd July 21, 2004
Certificate of Exceptional Customer Service, undated
Certificate of Exceptional Customer Service, undated
Ltr of Appreciation from FedEx, undated
Certificate of Completion for completing FedEx Express Training, dtd March 29, 2002
Character Reference ltr from E_ G. S_, Data Processing Section Director, dtd November 3, 1998
Certificate of Appreciation, dtd March 2001

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: None
         Active: None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 19940818             Date of Discharge: 19960206

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 01 02 15 (Does not include lost time.)
         Inactive: 00 03 04

 Time Lost During This Period (days):

         Unauthorized absence:    8 days
         Confinement:                       None

 Age at Entry: 20

 Years Contracted: 8

Education Level: 12                                 AFQT: 37

 Highest Rate: SA

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: NA*                           Behavior: NA*                      OTA: NA*

 Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, (as listed on the DD Form 214): None
* Not Available


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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority: MILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.
Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

951117:  Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (35 minutes late reporting for work on 951113 (Reported Aboard at 0725). Liberty expired on board for all hands at 0650, 951113.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

 951120:  Applicant to unauthorized absence at 0600 on 951120.

 951128:  Applicant from unauthorized absence at 1800 on 951128 (8 days/surrendered).
951209:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Absence without leave.
 Violation of UCMJ, Article 87: Missing movement
          Award: Forfeiture of $478.00 pay per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 30 days. No indication of appeal in the record.

951221:  NAVDRUGLAB, Jacksonville, FL, reported Applicant’s urine sample, received 951204, tested positive for THC.
951222:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 112a: Wrongful use of controlled substance.
         Specification: Between 20-28 November 95, wrongfully used marijuana, a controlled substance, while on unauthorized absence.
         Award: Forfeiture of $427.00 pay per month for 2 months, restriction for 45 days, reduction to E-1. No indication of appeal in the record.
951222:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with the least favorable characterization of service under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to Commission of a Serious Offense and /or misconduct due to drug abuse as evidenced by all punishments under the UCMJ in your current enlistment and/or all drug incidents in your current enlistment.
951222:  Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult with counsel, elected to waive all rights.

951229:  Psychiatric or medical evaluation as required: Medical Officer signed final medical evaluation on this date. Evaluation and examination indicates that member is not addicted and is fit for separation. [Extracted from Commanding Officer’s letter of 960104].
960104:  Commanding Officer, USS KALAMAZOO (AOR 6), recommended to Chief of Naval Personnel (PERS-83), that the Applicant be discharged under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense and/or misconduct due to drug abuse. Commanding Officer’s comments: “SR P_ (Applicant) has no potential for further military service. He went on unauthorized absence on 20 Nov 95 for a period of approximately nine days. During that period, he wrongfully used marijuana, the use of which was confirmed through urinalysis and his own admission at NJP. I strongly recommend an expeditious Other Than Honorable Discharge.”

960131:  BUPERS, directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion
The Applicant was discharged on 19960206 by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A and B) with a service characterization of under other than honorable conditions. 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).

There is credible evidence in the record that the Applicant used illegal drugs. The Applicant was awarded nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for a violation of UCMJ Article 86, unauthorized absence, Article 87, missing movement, and Article 112a, wrongful use, possession, etc., of a controlled substance. Regulations permit relief on equitable grounds if the Applicant’s discharge is inconsistent with standards of discipline of the Naval service. 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 Applicant was properly notified, processed and discharged under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse. 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. Relief denied.

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 Naval service. The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge 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. Examples of documentation that could be provided to the Board include proof of educational pursuits, verifiable employment records, documentation of community service, and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities. The Board received and considered all of the Applicant’s submissions, including his many certificates and awards earned in his civilian employment. After careful consideration, the Board concluded the Applicant’s post-service achievements have been insufficient to mitigate his misconduct while in the Naval service. Relief denied.

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. The Applicant can provide any additional documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments or any additional evidence related to this discharge. Representation at a personal appearance hearing is recommended but not required.




 Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 9, effective
22 Jul 94 until 02 Oct 96, Article 3630600, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT - COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE.

 B. The Manual for Courts-Martial authorizes the award of a punitive discharge if adjudged as part of the sentence upon conviction by a special or general court-martial for violation of the UCMJ, Article 87, missing movement, or Article 112a, wrongful use, possession, etc. of a controlled substance.
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 | 2001_Navy | ND01-00098

    Original file (ND01-00098.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requested a personal appearance hearing discharge review before a traveling panel closest to San Diego, CA. The Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) also advised that the board first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 960405 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct (A).

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-01289

    Original file (ND04-01289.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 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 | ND0500247

    Original file (ND0500247.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. As of this time, the Applicant has not provided any documentation for the Board to consider. 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:

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00336

    Original file (ND00-00336.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND00-00336 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 000118, 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 of Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States and all of the evidence assembled for review, it is found that (applicant) requests a change of discharge from Other Than Honorable to...

  • USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0501420

    Original file (MD0501420.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions). After I told the men in my command that I had taken the drugs. The NDRB advises that there was no impropriety in his administrative separation for misconduct due to drug abuse, despite the evidence of record showing that the Applicant’s test result came back negative for controlled substances.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00858

    Original file (ND01-00858.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 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: USN 930414 - 951112 HON Inactive: USNR (DEP) 921021 - 930413 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 951113 Date of Discharge: 000808 Length of Service (years, months, days): Active: 04 08 25 Inactive: None Age at Entry: 21...

  • USMC | DRB | 2002_Marine | MD02-01315

    Original file (MD02-01315.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD02-01315 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020911, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable or general/under honorable conditions. Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.950927: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Did absent yourself without authority by securing from duty at 1000, 950727 and did not return until 0730, 950728;...

  • USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-00891

    Original file (MD03-00891.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD03-00891 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030410. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable conditions and the reason for the discharge be changed. 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.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00520

    Original file (ND03-00520.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-00520 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030210. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Relief denied.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 | 2004_Navy | ND04-01160

    Original file (ND04-01160.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 20041222. 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).Issue1: The Applicant has not provided any evidence to support his claim that he was given “no advisement or...