Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600074
Original file (ND0600074.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-OSSA, USN
Docket No. ND06-00074

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20051020. 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 available 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 attached document/letter:

“Dear Board Members,
I am writing in regards to my discharge review. I was discharged on January 16 th 2003 because I tested positive for THC. Even though I had a severe drug and alcohol problem, my service record was exemplary. I took extreme pride in my job. My discharge was based solely on drug use and nothing else. I never abused drugs on base nor did I ever bring it onto government property. I was too embarrassed to report my use to my chain of command so that I might have gotten help. I have currently completed approximately sixteen months of drug treatment and have earned twenty-eight college credit hours. I am respectfully requesting my discharge be upgraded to honorable. I believe in second chances and I am graciously asking for a second chance. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

D_ B. A_
[signed] D_ B. A_ (Applicant)”
Documentation

Only the service record was 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)     20001017 – 20010618               COG
         Active: None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 20010619             Date of Discharge: 20030116

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 01 06 28
         Inactive: None

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

 Age at Entry: 17 (Parental Consent)

 Years Contracted: 4

Education Level: 12                                 AFQT: 70

 Highest Rate: OSSN

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.0 (2)              Behavior: 2.0 (2)                 OTA: 3 .00

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


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 :

021230:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 112a: Wrongful use of a controlled substance.
         Award: Forfeiture of $620.00 pay per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days to the limits of USS ANCHORAGE (LSD 36), reduction to E-2. No indication of appeal in the record.
030116:  GCMCA, COMPHIGRU THREE directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct drug abuse.


Service Record contains a partial Administrative Discharge package.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion
The Applicant was discharged on 20030116 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 available records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (C and D). The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (E).

 The government enjoys a presumption of regularity in the conduct of its affairs. The Applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support his issue. In the Applicant’s case, in the absence of a complete discharge package and without credible and substantial evidence to refute the Board’s presumption, the Board evoked the presumption of regularity. Specifically, the Board presumed that the Applicant was properly notified of the Commanding Officer’s intention to recommend his separation and that the Applicant was afforded all rights which he elected.

The Applicant implies his discharge should be upgraded because, “despite his drug and alcohol problem, [his] service record was exemplary.” The Applicant further contends that he never used illegal drugs on base or government property. Despite a servicemember’s prior record of service, certain serious offenses, even though isolated, warrant separation from the naval service in order to maintain proper order and discipline. The Applicant’s service record is marred by award of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for illegal drug use, thus substantiating the misconduct for which he was separated. 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 implies that his discharge should be changed as a result of his post-service accomplishments. 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, Article 112a, wrongful use 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 .

E. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part II, Para 211, Regularity of Government Affairs .



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 | ND04-00220

    Original file (ND04-00220.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND04-00220 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20031119. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. My commitment to my family is something that 1 will take to the grave.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600040

    Original file (ND0600040.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND06-00040 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20051004. 990820: Commanding Officer, USS CARL VINSON (CVN 70), recommended the Commander, Carrier Group THREE, that the Applicant be discharged with under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse as evidenced by his nonjudicial punishment imposed on 15 July 1999 for violation of the UCMJ, Article 112a. The Applicant is advised that the Veterans Administration determines...

  • USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0600322

    Original file (MD0600322.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). Therefore, it is in the bet interest of the Marine Corps to separate Private A_ (Applicant) with an other than honorable discharge.030916: Applicant placed on voluntary leave awaiting Administrative Separation.030930: SJA review determined the case sufficient in law and fact.031015: GCMCA, Commanding General, Marine Corps Base, Camp Lejeune,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-01133

    Original file (ND04-01133.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND04-01133 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20040708. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. Issue 2: The record contains evidence that the Applicant appealed his NJP.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00329

    Original file (ND03-00329.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-00329 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20021219. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable or general/under honorable conditions. At this time, the Applicant has not provided sufficient verifiable documentation of good character and conduct to mitigate his misconduct while on active duty.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00582

    Original file (ND04-00582.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 ask that you as a Review Board consider my service record and the supporting documentation that I have enclosed with this letter in your review. There is no law or regulation that provides recharacterization solely on the issue of obtaining Veterans' benefits, or enhancing employment and educational opportunities and this issue does not serve to...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501005

    Original file (ND0501005.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I strongly recommend that he be separated from the naval service and his service be characterized as Other Than Honorable”.010809: Commander, Submarine Group 9 The Applicant provided 12 character/job reference letters, 80 pages from his service record and 6 certificates of training earned during his service, as documentation of his post service accomplishments. The Applicant can provide documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments or any other evidence related to his...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501050

    Original file (ND0501050.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Accordingly, I strongly recommend that he be separated from the naval service with an other than honorable discharge.”CNMPC directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse (use). The NDRB has no authority to provided additional review of this case since Applicant’s discharge occurred more than 15 years ago. The Applicant may, however, petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR), 2 Navy Annex, Washington, DC...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00523

    Original file (ND04-00523.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND04-00523 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20040212. Decision A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20041001. I request this consideration because my discharge was based on one isolated incident over 44 months of service, with no other adverse action.I entered the U.S. Navy in May of 1989.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00355

    Original file (ND04-00355.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND04-00355 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20031218. Chief H_ was not designated in writing by the Commanding Officer to be the command UPC until 06 Nov. 2002, which is over two months after this test was taken. (PAGE 9) Exhibit B 7.