Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0800314
Original file (ND0800314.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-MM3, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20071114
Characterization of Service Received:
Narrative Reason for Discharge:
Authority for Discharge: MILPERSMAN

Applicant’s Request:     Characterization change to:
                           Narrative Reason change to:

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
 Inactive: US N R (DEP)      20000731 - 20001219              Active: 20001220 – 20030109 HON
Period of Service Under Review:
 Date of Enlistment: 20030110      Period of enlistment : Years Extension          Date of Discharge: 20050204
Length of Service : Yrs Mths 25 D ys      Education Level:         Age at Enlistment:       AFQT: 95
Highest Rank /Rate : MM2    Evaluation marks: Performance: 3.3 ( 3 )     Behavior: 3.0 ( 3 )          OTA: 2.95
Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214): GCM

Period of UA : 20041228 – 20050109 (12 Days)

NJPs :    
         20050112 : Art(s) 86, 112a . Awarded - Susp -
        

Types of Documents Submitted

 Related to Military Service:      DD 214:          Service and/or Medical Record:            Other Records:

Related to Post-Service Period:  
         Employment:                        Finances:                          Education /Training :     
         Health/Medical Records:           Substance Abuse:                           Criminal Records:       
         Family/Personal Status:           Community Service:                References:              
        
Additional Statements From Applicant:             From Representat ion :              From Member of Congress:
Other Documentation (Describe)



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

Applicant’s Issues

 1. Isolated incident
Decision

Date: 2008 0306             Location: Washington D.C         R epresentation :

By a vote of the Characterization shall .
By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall MISCONDUCT .
Discussion

Issue 1 ( ). The Applicant contends that his discharge should be upgraded because it was an isolated incident for which he was seeking treatment. The NDRB advises the Applicant that, despite a service member’s prior record of service, certain serious offenses, even though isolated, warrant separation from the Navy in order to maintain proper order and discipline. The Applicant's misconduct is documented in his service record, which is marred by the finding at a nonjudicial punishment (NJP) proceeding on 200 50112 for violation s of UCMJ Article 86 and 112a . Although discharge for one NJP may seem harsh, the Applicant was found guilty of abus ing a controlled substance. Individuals are indoctrinated from the day of recruitment and have had the policy reinforced through annual Navy-wide training sessions, throughout their enlistment on the U.S Navy’s zero tolerance policy for substance abuse and that a violation of this policy will result in mandatory processing for administrative separation which usually results in an unfavorable characterization of discharge. This policy is well known throughout both the Department of Defense and the civilian sector as well. Accordingly, this misconduct substantiates the reason for his separation as well as his characterization of service under other than honorable conditions. No other narrative reason for separation or characterization could more clearly describe why the Applicant was discharged.

In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of Government affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the Applicant. After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Medical and Service Record Entries, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found that

In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of Government affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the Applicant. After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Medical and Service Record Entries, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found that

Pertinent Regulation/Law

 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. 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 V, Para 502, Propriety and Para 503, Equity .

C. 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 , Drug Abuse .



ADDENDUM: Information for the Applicant

 Complaint Procedures : 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 Instruction 1332.28, you may submit a complaint in accordance with Enclosure (5) of that Instruction to the Joint Service Review Activity, OUSD (P&R) PI-LP, The Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-4000 . You should read Enclosure (5) of the Instruction 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 Instruction 1332.28 and other Decisional Documents by going online at “ http://Boards.law.af.mil . ”

Additional Reviews : Subsequent to a document review, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provi ded the 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. If a former member has been discharged for more than 15 years , has already been grante d a personal appearance hearing or has otherwise exhausted his opportunities before the NDRB, the Applicant may petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR), 2 Navy Annex, Washington, DC 20370-5100 for further review.

 Service Benefits: 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 and this issue does not serve to provide a foundation upon which the Board can grant relief.
Employmen t / Educational Opportunities : The Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment or educational opportunities. Regulations limit the Board’s review to a determination of the propriety and equity of the discharge.

Reenlistment/RE-code: Since the NDRB has no jurisdiction over reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Navy, Marine Corps, or any other of the Armed Forces, the NDRB is not authorized to change a reenlistment code. Only the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) can make changes to reenlistment codes. Additionally, the Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities. 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.
Medical Conditions and Misconduct : DoD disability regulations do not preclude a disciplinary separation. Appropriate regulations stipulate that separations for misconduct take precedence over potential separations for other reasons. Whenever a member is being processed through the Physical Evaluation Board, and subsequently is processed for an administrative involuntary separation for misconduct, the disability evaluation is suspended. The Physical Evaluation Board case remains in suspense pending the outcome of the non-disability proceedings. If the action includes either a punitive or administrative discharge for misconduct, the medical board report is filed in the member’s terminated health record. Additionally, the NDRB does not have the authority to change a narrative reason for separation to one indicating a medical disability or “PTSD . ” Only the Board for Correction of Naval Records can grant this type of narrative reason change.

Automatic Upgrades - 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 may 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.

Issues Concerning Bad-Conduct Discharges (BCD ) – Because relevant and material facts stated in a court-martial specification are presumed by the NDRB to be established facts, issues relating to the Applicant’s innocence of charges for which he was found guilty cannot form a basis for relief. With respect to a discharge adjudged by a court-martial, the action of the NDRB is restricted to upgrades based on clemency. Clemency is an act of leniency that reduces the severity of the punishment imposed.

Board Membership: 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 | 2008_Navy | ND0800731

    Original file (ND0800731.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Awarded - Types of Documents Submitted/ReviewedRelated to Military Service: DD 214: Service and/or Medical Record: Other Records: Related to Post-Service Period: Employment: Finances: Education/Training: Health/Medical Records: Substance Abuse: Criminal Records: Family/Personal Status: Community Service: References: Additional Statements From Applicant: The Applicant is advised that completion of these items alone does not guarantee the upgrade of an unfavorable discharge as each discharge...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0800175

    Original file (ND0800175.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s Request: Characterization change to: Narrative Reason change to: Applicant’s Issues 1. Types of Documents SubmittedRelated to Military Service: DD 214: Service and/or Medical Record: Other Records: Related to Post-Service Period: Employment: Finances: Education/Training: Health/Medical Records: Substance Abuse: Criminal Records: Family/Personal Status: Community Service: References: Additional Statements From Applicant: From Representation: From Member of Congress: Other...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0800080

    Original file (ND0800080.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Therefore,and an upgrade in the characterization of the Applicants service to general (under honorable conditions) is warranted.After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Medical and Service Record Entries, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found the discharge was proper but not equitable. ” Additional Reviews : Subsequent to a document review, former members are eligible for a personal appearance...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0701239

    Original file (ND0701239.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Types of Documents SubmittedRelated to Military Service: DD 214: Service and/or Medical Record: Other Records: Related to Post-Service Period: Employment: Finances: Education/Training: Health/Medical Records: Substance Abuse: Criminal Records: Family/Personal Status: Community Service: References: Additional Statements From Applicant: From Representation: From Member of Congress: Other Documentation (Describe) NDRB Documentary Review Conducted (date): 20000411 NDRB Documentary Review Docket...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900321

    Original file (ND0900321.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant’s misconduct is clearly documented. ” Additional Reviews : Subsequent to a document review, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application is received at the NDRB within 15 years from the date of discharge. Additionally, the NDRB does not have the authority to change a narrative reason for separation to one indicating a medical disability or other medical related reasons.Only the Board for Correction of Naval Records can grant this...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801376

    Original file (ND0801376.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to:Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive: USNR (DEP)20050521 - 20051205Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 20051206Period of Enlistment: YearsExtensionDate of Discharge:20070307Length of Service: YearMonths02 DaysEducation Level: Age at Enlistment:AFQT:75Highest Rank/Rate:ETXNEvaluationMarks:Performance:NFIR Behavior:NFIROTA:NFIRAwards and Decorations (per DD 214):Periods of UA/CONF:...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801439

    Original file (ND0801439.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The NDRB advises the Applicant that despite a service member’s prior record of service, certain serious offenses, even though isolated, warrant separation from the Navy in order to maintain proper order and discipline.However, in the Applicant case, the evidence reflects he committed numerous offenses during this enlistment, thus contradicting his allegation the discharge is based on one isolated incident.The Applicant's misconduct is documented in his service record, which is marred by...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0800644

    Original file (ND0800644.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s Request: Characterization change to: Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive: USNR (DEP)19960628 - 19961120Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 19961121Period of enlistment: YearsExtensionDate of Discharge:20000802Length of Service: Yrs Mths12 DysEducation Level: Age at Enlistment:AFQT: 93Highest Rank/Rate:AT2Evaluation marks:Performance: NFIR Behavior:NFIROTA: NFIRAwards and Decorations (per DD 214):Pistol Periods of UA/CONF:...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801441

    Original file (ND0801441.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Record Entries, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found ADDENDUM: Information for the Applicant Complaint Procedures : 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 Instruction 1332.28, you may submit a complaint in accordance with...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801515

    Original file (ND0801515.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The NDRB determined an upgrade would be inappropriate.After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Record Entries, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found ADDENDUM: Information for the Applicant Complaint Procedures : 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 Instruction...