Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600013
Original file (ND0600013.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-ETSN, USN
Docket No. ND06-00013

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20050928. The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions). 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 20060628. 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:

“I want back in the military very badly. I’ve grown up a lot since being discharged and miss the military life. I should have thought about the consequences.”

 Documentation
Only the service and medical records were reviewed. The Applicant did not provide additional documentation for the Board’s consideration.

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     20000831 – 20011018      COG
         Active: None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 20011018             Date of Discharge: 20021001

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 00 11 14
         Inactive: None

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

 Age at Entry: 20

 Years Contracted: 4 (24 months extension)

 Education Level: 12                                 AFQT: 80

 Highest Rate: ET3

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 2.0 (1)     Behavior: 1.0 (1)        OTA: 1 .4

 Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, (as listed on the DD Form 214): None


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 :

000831:  Pre-service waiver for drug requirements granted. (as appropriate)

001018:  Applicant briefed on Navy's policy of drug and alcohol abuse.

020708:  NAVDRUGLAB, Jacksonville, FL, reported Applicant’s urine sample, received 020624, tested positive for cocaine and ecstacy.
020723:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86:
         Specification: In that ET3 H_ E. O_ Jr, (Applicant), USN, Naval Submarine School, Naval Submarine Base New London Groton, Connecticut, on active duty, did, on or about 0730, 03 June 2002, without authority, absent himself from his organization, to wit: Naval Submarine School, and remained absent until on or about 0730, 04 June 2002.
         Violation of UCMJ, Article 92:
 Specification: In that ET3 H_ E. O_ Jr, (Applicant), USN, Naval Submarine School, having knowledge of a lawful order issued by the Commanding Officer, to wit: Naval Submarine School listing of Off-Limits establishments, an order which it was his duty to obey, did, at or near Hartford, Connecticut on diverse occasions between March and June 2002, fail to obey the same by going to Club Vibe.
Violation of UCMJ, Article 111:
Specification: In that ET3 H_ E. O_ Jr, (Applicant), USN, Naval Submarine School, on active duty, did onboard Naval Submarine Base New London on or about 02 May 2002, physically control a vehicle, to wit: a passenger car, while the alcohol concentration in his breath was 0.10 grams of alcohol per 210 liters of breath or greater, as shown by chemical analysis.
Violation of UCMJ, Article 112a:
Specification 1: In that ET3 H_ E. O_ Jr, (Applicant), USN, Naval Submarine School New London, Groton, Connecticut, on active duty, did, at or near Club Vibe in Hartford, Connecticut, on or about 02 March 2002, wrongfully use ecstasy.
Specification 2: In that ET3 H_ E. O_ Jr, (Applicant), USN, Naval Submarine School New London, Groton, Connecticut, on active duty, did, at or near Club Vibe in Hartford, Connecticut, on or about 15 June 2002, wrongfully use ecstasy.
Specification 3: In that ET3 H_ E. O_ Jr, (Applicant), USN, Naval Submarine School New London, Groton, Connecticut, on active duty, did, at or near Club Vibe in Hartford, Connecticut, on or about 15 June 2002, wrongfully use ecstasy.
         Award: Forfeiture of $651.00 pay per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to E-3. No indication of appeal in the record.
020726:  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 drug abuse.

020726:  Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult with counsel, elected to waive all rights.

020916:  COMSUBGRU TWO , directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.

030307:  Commanding Officer, Naval Submarine School, recommended to Commander Navy Personnel Command that the Applicant be discharged under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse. Commanding Officer’s comments: “On 17 June 2002, ETSN O_ (Applicant) provided a urinalysis which tested positive for ecstasy and cocaine. On 10 July 2002, ETSN O_ (Applicant) admitted using ecstasy and cocaine to MA1 G_. His conduct was detrimental to good order and discipline in the Naval service with a discharge characterized as Other Than Honorable.”

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion
The Applicant was discharged on 20021001 by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse (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).

The Applicant requests an upgrade to his discharge characterization to general (under honorable conditions). When the service of a member of the U.S. Navy has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service as honorable. An under other than honorable conditions [or] general discharge is warranted when significant negative aspects of a member’s conduct or performance of duty outweigh the positive aspects of the member’s military record. One nonjudicial punishment proceeding for violations of UCMJ Articles 86 (unauthorized absence), 92 (failure to obey an lawful order), 111 (drunken driving), and 112a (wrongful use of a controlled substance-3 specs) marred the Applicant’s service. The NDRB advises the Applicant that certain serious offenses warrant separation from the Navy in order to maintain proper order and discipline. Violations of Article 86, 92, 111 and 112a are considered serious offenses and typically warrant a punitive discharge if adjudged at a special or general court-martial. 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 with the U.S. Navy and falls far short of that required for an upgrade of his characterization of service. Relief is not warranted.

The NDRB further advises the Applicant that there is credible evidence in the record that the Applicant used illegal drugs. 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 his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions. Relief denied.

The Applicant contends that he wants to re-enlist in the military and that he has matured since being discharged. S ince the NDRB has no jurisdiction over reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Navy, Marine Corps, or any other of the Armed Forces, NDRB is not authorized to change a reenlistment code. An unfavorable “RE” code is, in itself, not a bar to reenlistment. A request for a waiver can be submitted during the processing of a formal application for reenlistment through a recruiter. Only the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) can make changes to reenlistment codes.




The following is provided for the edification of the Applicant. Normally, to permit relief, a procedural impropriety or inequity must have occurred during the discharge process for the period of enlistment in question. The Board discovered no impropriety after a review of Applicant’s case. 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 should be provided to the Board include proof of educational pursuits, verifiable employment records, documentation of community service, credible evidence of a substance free lifestyle and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities. As of this time, the Applicant has not provided any post service documentation for the Board to consider. 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 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 . 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. 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, Articles 86 (unauthorized absence), 92 (failure to obey an lawful order), 111 (drunken driving), and 112a (wrongful use of a controlled substance-3 specs).

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 | 2006_Navy | ND0600155

    Original file (ND0600155.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. As of this time, the Applicant has not provided any post-service documentation for the Board to consider. 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

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600083

    Original file (ND0600083.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND06-00083 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20051014. The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions). Specification 2: In that Yeoman Third Class (Submarine) J_ D. D_(Applicant), U.S. Navy Submarine Squadron Support Unit, New London, on active duty, violate a lawful order issued by the Commanding Officer, Submarine Squadron Support Unit, to wit...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600034

    Original file (ND0600034.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance):GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS) MISCONDUCT, authority: MILPERSMAN, Article 1910-142 (formerly 3630605). 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 implies that his discharge was improper because he was denied Captain’s Mast. The summary of service clearly...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00518

    Original file (ND03-00518.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 Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:None PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: USNR (DEP) 880622 - 880628 COG Active: USN None Period of Service Under Review :Date of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600428

    Original file (ND0600428.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    - Patient is NOT medically clear to participate in the SARP program at this time. (0): Mental status examination reveals a well groomed, articulate, and sophisticated 24year old, male in acute distress He is dressed in the uniform of the day The patient was alert and oriented and attentive to the interview He speaks in a slow, deliberate style with a clear voice and has good eye contact Thought processes are logical and linear There is no evidence of disturbances in thought content Mood is...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600105

    Original file (ND0600105.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    That boat was the cause of my medical problems. I think I’m out of the Navy why am I back here? My discharge was wrongly assessed and needs to be changed to a honorable discharge under medical conditions.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1201628

    Original file (ND1201628.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Representation: By a vote of the Characterization shall .By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall .Discussion The NDRB, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge, is authorized to change the character of service and the reason for discharge if such change is warranted.In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include...

  • USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-00777

    Original file (MD03-00777.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 at the time of issue. Changes 2 – 6 not applicable to SPD Codes or Narrative Reason for Separation) GKK1 Misconduct-Drug abuse (with admin discharge board)HKK1 Misconduct-Drug abuse (admin discharge board required but waived) Characterization of service is written “HONORABLE”, “ UNDER...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00782

    Original file (ND99-00782.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 Letter from applicant, dated April 7, 1999. Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :980403: Letter of intent to deny eligibility for a security clearance. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501076

    Original file (ND0501076.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). 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) 20001107 – 20011031 COG (Failed to Graduate) Inactive: USNR (DEP) 20011116...