Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801026
Original file (ND0801026.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-QMSN, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20080408
Characterization of Service Received:
Narrative Reason for Discharge: PATTER OF MISCONDUCT/DRUG ABUSE
Authority for Discharge: MILPERSMAN

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

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
 Inactive: US N R (DEP)      19821209 - 19830306              Active:          19983030 - 19830609
                                                                                          19830610 - 19880904
                                                                                          19980905 - 19951004
                                                                                 USN      19951005 - 19980814 HON
Period of Service Under Review:
 Date of Enlistment: 19980815      Period of E nlistment : Years Extension          Date of Discharge: 20000714
Length of Service : Yrs Mths 00 D ys      Education Level:         Age at Enlistment:       AFQT: 36
Highest Rank /Rate : QM2    Evaluation M arks: Performance: 3.6 ( 1 )     Behavior: 3.8 ( 1 )          OTA: 3.80 4.0 eval
Performance: 3.0 ( 1 )      Behavior: 1.0 ( 1 )         OTA: 3.00 5.0 eval
Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214): Pistol (3) (3) (3) JMUC (3)
W/BRONZE STAR CGSOR, KLM

Periods of UA /C ONF :

NJPs :    
19990210 : Art icle 111 (Drunken or reckless operation of a vehicle ),
Art icle 134 (Drunkenness).
 Awarded - DAPA screening . Susp - .

19991216 : Art icle 92 (Fail to obey a lawful order by wrongfully driving on base) ,
Art icle 107 (False official statement).
 Awarded - . Susp - .
20000203 : Art icle 112a (Wrongful use of marijuana).
Awarded - . Susp - .

S CMs :   

SPCMs:  

C C :      

Retention Warnings: .
19990210 : For drunkenness and drunken or reckless operation of a vehicle .
20000104 : For failing to obey a lawful verbal order not to drive on base and make a false official statement that he
was not informed not to drive on base. .





Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

 The NDRB did note administrative error(s) on the original DD Form 214:
         “ UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS ”
         “ PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT ”

The NDRB will recommend to the C ommander, Navy Personnel Command , that the DD 214 be corrected as appropriate.
Types of Documents Submitted/reviewed

 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)

Pertinent Regulation/Law

 A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 18, effective 12 December 1997 until 21 August 2002,
Article 1910-140, SEPARATION BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT - PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT.

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 92, 107, 111.


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

Applicant’s Issues

 1. Medical benefits.
2. False positive drug test.

Decision

Date : 20 08 0 828             Location: Washington D.C        R epresentation :

By a vote of the Characterization shall .
 By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall MISCONDUCT (PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT/DRUG ABUSE) .
Discussion

 : either which the Board cannot form the basis of relief for the Applicant, or the Board does not have the authority to grant the relief for which the Applicant petitioned. The Applicant is directed to the Addendum , specifically the paragraph concerning regarding .

: ( ) . The Applicants claims his urinalysis for THC was a false positive because he was taking MOTRIN at the time. The Applicant submits his military medical records dated 17 March 2000 which show he was prescribed Motrin for cold/flu like symptoms. He also produces an unidentified type written statement which stat es “ibuprofen can trigger false alarms for marijuana.” 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. The Applicant’s record of service was marred by two retention warnings for drunken driving, failure to obey and making a false official statement and three Non-judicial punishments for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice involving drunken and reckless driving, failure to obey a lawful order by driving on Base, and finally drug abuse. Violations of Articles 92, 107, and 111 are considered serious offenses and could have resulted in a punitive discharge and confinement if adjudicated by a special or general court-martial. The command did not pursue a punitive discharge but opted instead for an administrative discharge. Due to the number of violations over a time span from February 1999 until February 2000, the Applicant was discharged for a Pattern of Misconduct and Drug Abuse. The Applicant does not produce any convincing scientific or medical evidence to support his claim the use of ibuprofens produce d a false positive for marijuana on his urinalysis.

Additi onally 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 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 or is referred to a court martial 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 other medical related reasons. 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 special 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. The NDRB does not have the jurisdictional authority to review a discharge or dismissal resulting from a general court-martial.

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 | 2007_Navy | ND0700773

    Original file (ND0700773.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant’s service was marred by one retention warnings, the award of two nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), Article 86 (Unauthorized Absence), Article 91 (Insubordinate conduct toward a petty officer), Article 92 ( Failure to obey a lawful order or regulation), Article 107 (False official statement), Article 111 (Drunken or reckless operation of a vehicle), Article 134 ( Drunkenness), Article 134 (False or unauthorized pass...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0800699

    Original file (ND0800699.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant should be aware post service conduct alone does not guarantee an upgrade from an unfavorable discharge as each discharge is reviewed by the Board on a case-by-case basis to determine if post service conduct mitigates the reason for the characterization of the discharge.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 Pertinent...

  • USMC | DRB | 2012_Marine | MD1200887

    Original file (MD1200887.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application is received at the NDRB within 15 years of the Applicant’s date of discharge. Additionally, the NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities.

  • USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1100647

    Original file (MD1100647.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I have reviewed the Senior Member’s report and agree with the board’s findings and recommendations that (the Applicant) be discharged from the United States Marine Corps with an other than honorable conditions characterization of service.’ ” On 10 Jul 2009, the Separation Authority concurred with the findings and recommendations of the Admin Board and directed that the Applicant be separated from the Marine Corps with an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge due to Misconduct...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801005

    Original file (ND0801005.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Decision Date: 20080821Location: Washington D.C Representation: By a vote of the Characterization shall .By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT.Discussion :() .The Applicant contends his characterization should be upgraded because his discharge was improper in that his civilian misconduct charges were dismissed.In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of Government affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801156

    Original file (MD0801156.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to: or UNCHARACTERIZEDNarrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive: USMCR (DEP)19991208 - 19991228Active:19991229 - 20031003 Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 20031004Period of Enlistment: Years MonthsDate of Discharge:20061123Length of Service: Years Month20 DaysEducation Level: Age at Enlistment:AFQT:38MOS: 0431Highest Rank: Fitness reports: Proficiency/Conduct marks (# of occasions):()/()Awards and...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0800573

    Original file (ND0800573.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s Request: Characterization change to: Narrative Reason change: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive: USNR (DEP)20040722 - 20040729 Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 20040730Period of enlistment:4 YearsDate of Discharge:20051110Length of Service: Yrs Mths10 DysEducation Level: 12Age at Enlistment:AFQT: 82Highest Rank/Rate:AZANEvaluation marks:Performance: 4.0 (3) Behavior:2.0 (3)OTA: 2.94 (3)Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):,,,and NJP:20050907: Violation...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801502

    Original file (ND0801502.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Additionally, there is sufficient evidence to substantiate discharge for misconduct due to the commission of serious offenses and the fact the misconduct did not occur “back to back” as the Applicant contends is of no consequence since all of the NJP’s which led to the Applicant’s discharge occurred during the current enlistment as required under MILPERSMAN 1910 -210.After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Record Entries, Discharge...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801042

    Original file (ND0801042.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Considering the NJP for the Article 111 violation and the numerous civilian violations, which are considered more than minor traffic violations, the Board 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1000221

    Original file (ND1000221.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Types of Documents Submitted/reviewedRelated to Military Service: DD 214:Service/Medical Record:Other Records: Related to Post-Service Period: Employment: Finances: Education/Training: Health/Medical Records: Rehabilitation/Treatment: Criminal Records: Personal Documentation: Community Service: References: Department of VA letter: Other Documentation: Additional Statements:From Applicant: From/To Representation:From/ToCongress member: Pertinent Regulation/Law A. Summary: After a thorough...