PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION
PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE
PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW
Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)
A. The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), re-issued October 2002, effective 22 Aug 2002 until 28 April 2005, 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 (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.
NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00671
In the acknowledgement letter to the applicant, he was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. I feel the Other Than Honorable discharge I received was unjust due to the fact I had 47 months of service with no issues or adverse actions. Navy Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 5/93, effective 05 Mar 93 until 21 Jul 94, Article 3630620, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED MEMBERS BY REASON OF...
NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00104
I was told if I elected admin board, I would not receive the board until after my 6 month cruise was over. Airman Apprentice (Applicant) denies use of marijuana and points to his use of various fitness supplements and an antibiotic as the possible causes for a positive urinalysis result. The summary of service clearly documents that drug abuse was the reason the Applicant was discharged.
NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00527
The discharge shall remain: UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT – Drug Abuse, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630620.The NDRB did note an administrative error on the original DD Form 214. A second Board was convened; however, due to the senior member's failure to follow proper Board procedures during the hearing the Board's results were also invalidated. It is my further recommendation that the be separated under Other Than Honorable conditions as the result of his positive...
NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600040
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...
NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600343
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY ex-CS1, USNDocket No. Typed version does not reflect suspended separation for 6 months.040910: Letter of Applicant deficiencies submitted from Applicant counsel.040916: Commanding Officer, USS RUSHMORE (LSD 47), recommended discharge with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct - commission of a serious offense and Family Advocacy Program Failure. ...
NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00342
PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Statement from applicant dated February 14, 2001 Letter from applicant dated February 14, 2001 Copy of DD Form 214 Eleven pages from applicant's service record PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: None Inactive: None Period of Service Under Review :Date...
NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00757
It was LT R_'s first time giving a urinalysis test of this magnitude and also the first time on the ship. 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: The Applicant states his character is demonstrated by his outstanding and documented excellence award and quick promotion to Petty Officer third class. However, the NDRB is authorized to consider...
NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600525
The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions). I ask that you review my record, and you will find that in the four years and seven months of my enlistment I have been in no trouble and have received good conduct. I feel he has no potential for further military service and his offense warrants an administrative separation from the naval service by reason of Misconduct - Drug Abuse and...
NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00861
ND99-00861 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 990614, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214 Applicant's Enlisted Performance Summary Record Letters of Recommendation from Person Pastor Letters of Recommendation from my Pastors and Partners Church Tithe and...
NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501112
The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions). I do believe I deserve a general discharge under honorable conditions because I did serve 99% of my enlistment and I was a good sailor. Relief denied.The Applicant contends that his discharge is improper because he completed “99.9%” of his enlistment.