Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600010
Original file (ND0600010.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB)
 DISCHARGE REVIEW
DECISIONAL DOCUMENT
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

ex-SR, USN
Docket No. ND06-00010

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20050922. 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 20060721. 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 by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

 Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

“My discharge was “inequitable” because it was based on one isolated incident in 18 months of service with no other adverse action. The Marine Corps give 1 st offenders a 2 nd chance after completion of a mandatory drug rehab program. I was not given a 2 nd chance. I received an Administrative discharge under other than honorable conditions. I was only 19 years old. I served (in the Gulf War II) aboard the USS BONHOMME RICHARD (LHD-6) in the Iraq War with honor and distinction. While aboard I qualified for the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, Navy unit Commendations National Defense, operation Enduring Freedom Iraqi Freedom. I am war veteran! I want an honorable discharge for my service. I think and feel I deserve at least that.”

Applicant’s Remarks: (Taken from the DD Form 293): “I failed a random drug test while in port at San Diego after the Iraqi War. I was 19 and apparently hung out with the wrong crowd. The older sailors were an influence on me. We were all suffering from” Post Traumatic Stress” and I used bad judgment. The CO made an example of me in front of the whole ships company. I was a good sailor with high reviews but very young and inexperienced with dealing with peer pressure after the war in Iraq. I need an honorable discharge or a general discharge under honorable conditions, so I can go to college using the Texas Hazelwood Act. I appreciate your consideration on my request. I am a war veteran and would like to make something of myself. Thank you.”

 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)     20010928 – 20020909               COG
         Active: None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 20020910             Date of Discharge: 20031211

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 01 03 02
         Inactive: None

 Time Lost During This Period (days):
         Unauthorized absence: none
         Confinement:              none

 Age at Entry: 17 (Parental Consent)

 Years Contracted: 4 (24 month extension)

 Education Level: 12                                 AFQT: 54

 Highest Rate: SA

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 4.0 (2)              Behavior: 2.0 (2)                 OTA: 2 .83

 Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, (as listed on the DD Form 214): National Defense Service Medal.


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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/ MISCONDUCT, authority: MILPERSMAN, Article 1910-146, formerly 3630620 .
Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

031105:  NAVDRUGLAB, San Diego, CA reported Applicant’s urine sample, received 031029, tested positive for amphetamine/methamphetamine.
031121:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 112a (2 Specifications)
 Specification 1: In that Seaman Apprentice M_K. M_ (Applicant), U.S. Navy, on active duty, USS BONHOMME RICHARD, at or near San Diego, California, on or about 29 October 2003, wrongfully use amphetamine.
Specification 2: In that Seaman Apprentice M_K. M_ (Applicant), U.S. Navy, on active duty, USS BONHOMME RICHARD, at or near San Diego, California, on or about 29 October 2003, wrongfully use methamphetamine.
Award: Forfeiture of $600.00 pay per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to E-1. No indication of appeal in the record.
031121:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with the least favorable characterization of service under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct drug abuse.

031121:  Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult with counsel, elected to waive all rights except the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation.
031126:  Commanding Officer, USS BONHOMME RICHARD (LHD 6) recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse. Commanding Officer’s comments: “SR M_ (Applicant) has exhibited total disregard for the Navy’s rules and regulations as evidenced by her misconduct. Due to her actions, SR M_ (Applicant) is unable to function in the trusted capacity as a Sailor. Her behavior is a hindrance to good order and discipline. I strongly recommend that SR M_ (Applicant) be immediately separated from the Naval service with an Other Than Honorable Discharge.”

031205:  GCMCA, COMPHIBGRU THREE directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct drug abuse.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion
The Applicant was discharged on 20031211 by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse (A) 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 (B and C).

 The Applicant implies that her discharge was improper since she was suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. When reviewing a discharge, the Board does consider the extent to which a medical problem might affect an Applicant’s performance and ability to conform to the military’s standards of conduct and discipline. The Board generally does not consider the circumstances surrounding the Applicant’s stated condition, the implied incorrect diagnosis, nor the medical treatment given to the Applicant to be of sufficient nature to overlook the Applicant’s misconduct. Notwithstanding, the Board could find no evidence in the records that the Applicant was evaluated, diagnosed, or treated for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Indeed, the Applicant did not provide any documentation to support her claim. The Board unanimously concluded that her discharge is proper as issued. Relief denied.

The Applicant contends that her discharge was inequitable since her misconduct was an isolated incident in an otherwise honorable service. Applicable regulations require that a member’s characterization of service be based upon the member’s total performance of duty and conduct during the current enlistment. However, there are circumstances where conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single adverse incident may form the basis of characterization for a Sailor’s overall service. The incident need not result in formal punishment to be properly used to characterize a Sailor’s service. There is clear evidence in the Applicant’s service record that she used illegal drugs. Indeed, the Applicant received nonjudicial punishment on 20031121 for violation of UCMJ Article 112a (2 specifications) Wrongful use of controlled substance (amphetamine/amphetamine). Separation under these conditions generally results in characterization of service under other than honorable conditions. The Applicant was properly notified, processed and discharged. Based upon available records, nothing indicates that the Applicant’s discharge was in any way inconsistent with the standards of discipline in the U.S. Navy. Therefore, the Board concluded that the Applicant’s discharge was proper and equitable as issued. Relief denied.

The Applicant further contends that her discharge was inequitable because of her youth and immaturity at the time of service. It is true that the Applicant entered service at age 17 with parental consent. T he Board recognizes that serving in the U.S. Navy is challenging. Our country is fortunate to have men and women willing to endure the hardships and sacrifices required in order to serve their country. Most servicemembers begin their service at a relatively young age. It must be noted that despite their relative youth and immaturity, the vast majority of these members of the Navy still serve honorably and therefore earn their honorable discharges. In fairness to those members, commanders and separation authorities are tasked to ensure that undeserving Sailors receive no higher characterization than is due. After a thorough review, the Applicant’s records did not show that she was not responsible for her conduct and therefore should not be held accountable. The Board found that the Applicant's service was equitably characterized. Relief denied.

The Applicant is advised that 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 or enhancing employment and educational opportunities. Regulations limit the Board’s review to a determination on the propriety and equity of the discharge. Since these issues do not serve to provide a foundation upon which the Board can grant relief, relief on this basis is not warranted.

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 documentation to support post-service accomplishments or any other evidence related to the discharge at that time. 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), re-issued October 2002, effective 22 Aug 2002 until Present, 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 V, Para 502, Propriety .

C. 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 | ND0500223

    Original file (ND0500223.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requested 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:None were submitted PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: USNR (DEP) 990608 - 990727 COG Active: None HON Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 990728 Date of Discharge:...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600367

    Original file (ND0600367.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Therefore, it requested that the Board consider the mitigating and extenuating circumstances in this case, to include the impetuosity of his youth, and grant a favorable decision.If a favorable decision can not be granted at this time, it is requested that the Applicant be scheduled for a future Hearing.DAV” Documentation In addition to the service record, the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501009

    Original file (ND0501009.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    “Propriety or Equity Issue(s): The Administrative Discharge packet includes an error in the materials used by board members who deliberated on the Applicant’s board.Statement: In accordance with 32 CFR § 724, and SECNAVINST 5420.174D, the Veterans of Foreign Wars submits to the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) the above issue and following statement in supplement to the Applicant’s petition Time Lost During This Period (days): Unauthorized absence: 2 days Confinement: 25 days Age at...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501010

    Original file (ND0501010.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Thank You M_ D_ (Applicant)” Thus, I recommend that MSSR D_ be administratively separated with an other than honorable discharge.”950728: Applicant to unauthorized absence at 0710 on 950728.950801: Applicant from unauthorized absence at 0700 on 950801.950802: Applicant to unauthorized absence at 0700 on 950802.950810: NAVDRUGLAB, San Diego, CA, reported Applicant’s urine sample, received 950804, tested positive for amphetamine/methamphetamine.950824: BUPERS directed the Applicant's...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500775

    Original file (ND0500775.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND05-00775 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20050404. I was there for the Navy 24/7, please be there for me this one final time. The summary of service clearly documents that parenthood or custody of minor children was the reason the Applicant was discharged.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00612

    Original file (ND02-00612.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Patient (Applicant) s/p SARD for alcohol dependence. Recommendation: Continue AA meetings, weekly follow-up with medical officer, attend Stress Management weekly.000326: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense and alcohol abuse rehabilitation failure. 000326: Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500869

    Original file (ND0500869.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general under honorable conditions. I recommend that BM3 M_ (Applicant) be separated with an Other Than Honorable discharge by reason of misconduct”.940119: Commanding Officer, TPU, San Diego, CA forwarded to BUPERS, discharge documentation. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501540

    Original file (ND0501540.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In the acknowledgement letter, the Applicant was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. I recommend that SR M_ (Applicant) be discharged from the Naval Service and that the characterization of discharge be Other Than Honorable.” 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 | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0701030

    Original file (ND0701030.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Notes that previous NJP resulted in transfer to USS PELELIU where member continued to have discipline problems from disobeying a lawful order and disorderly conduct that led to another NJP within six months and the following punishment:45 days of restriction and extra duties, RIR to E-1 and FOP $167.55 for 2 mo(s), (susp for 6 mo(s), and pay restitution to the barracks Discharge Process Date Notified: NOT FOUND IN RECORDReason for Discharge:--Least Favorable Characterization: Date Applicant...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500534

    Original file (ND0500534.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 the representative, we ask that consideration be given to equitable relief, as this is a matter that involves a determination whether a discharge should be changed under the equity standards, to include any issue upon which the Applicant submits to the Board’s discretionary authority, under SECNAVIST 5420.174D, to include a review of his in-service...