Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801146
Original file (ND0801146.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-AT3, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20080430
Characterization of Service Received:
Narrative Reason for Discharge: (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) 20020928 - 20030822                 Active:

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment: 20030822      Period of E nlistment : Years Extension          Date of Discharge: 20061012
Length of Service : Yrs M on ths 21 D a ys   Education Level:         Age at Enlistment:       AFQT: 68
Highest Rank /Rate : AT3    Evaluation M arks: Performance: 3.5 ( 2 )    Behavior: 3.5 ( 2 )         OTA: 3.36
Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):

Periods of UA /C ONF :

NJPs :    

S CMs :   

SPCMs:  

C C :      

Retention Warnings: .

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) :
         - Pages from the MILPERSMAN
         - Department of Defense Instruction
          - Decision from the Department of Correction
          - Frequently asked questions about Mate Coca
          - Identification and quantitation of alkaloids in coca tea article
          - Erythroxylum Cataractarum article


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

Applicant’s Issues

 1. Reenlistment opportunities.
2. False-positive on urinalysis due to drinking herbal tea.

Decision

Date : 20080915             Location: Washington D.C .        R epresentation :

By a vote of the Characterization shall .
 By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall 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 s , regarding .

: ( ) . The Applicant contends the positive result on a drug screening urinalysis was due to his use of an herbal tea made from coca leaves, and not from the use of cocaine. 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 a positive urinalysis for cocaine. The record of evidence shows the Applicant has twice , unsuccessfully , challenged the results of his Administrative Separation Board on these grounds. The Applicant’s counsel petitioned the Applicant’s command twice, on 2 4 July 2006 and 4 Oct ober 2006, to overturn the results of the Administrative Separation Board . The c ommand considered the Applicant’s petitions, but decided to uphold the results of the Board. The NDRB determined the command acted properly and equitably to discharge the Applicant based on t he positive urinalysis result and was not persuaded by the Applicant’s argument that the positive result was due to the use of herbal tea. 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, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found

Pertinent Regulation/Law

 A. The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 11, effective 29 April 2005 until Present,
Article 1910-146, 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 .


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 | 2009_Navy | ND0901170

    Original file (ND0901170.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On page 4, Item 8, in the instructions for completion of DD Form 293, the Applicant is notified to submit evidence "which substantiate or relate directly to your issues in Item 6" (Issues: Why an upgrade or change is requested and justification for the request). However, even if the Applicant could have produced additional evidence to support a review based on his post-service conduct, post-service conduct alone does not guarantee an upgrade.Summary: After a thorough review of the available...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0800802

    Original file (MD0800802.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall MISCONDUCT.Discussion Issue 1: 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. After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Service Record, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found that Pertinent Regulation/Law A. ” Additional Reviews :...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140007240

    Original file (20140007240.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The unit conducted a urinalysis on 10 December 2011 and the applicant tested positive for cocaine. He does not do cocaine but he did use the coca tea. c. At the applicant's administrative separation board, a doctor from the drug testing lab states that for the level of cocaine in the applicant's specimen, he would have had to drink five cups of tea within four to five hours of the urinalysis, based on the rate at which it metabolizes.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00997

    Original file (ND04-00997.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND04-00997 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20040603. * (see medical issues documents). It was up until during the time of the cruise (U.S.S.

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130014157

    Original file (AR20130014157.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Presiding Officer I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Department of the Army Discharge Review Board in this case. The applicant provided documents that reflect on an unknown date, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12c(2), for misconduct (drug abuse). The applicant stated, in effect, he had served dutifully and faithfully as an intelligence analyst for...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0902360

    Original file (ND0902360.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant is advised that completion of these items alone does not guarantee the upgrade of an unfavorable discharge, as each discharge is reviewed by the Board on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member’s overall character.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entriesand discharge process,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1300492

    Original file (ND1300492.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. ” 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. There is no requirement or law that grants...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700367

    Original file (ND0700367.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant’s service was marred by 2 retention warnings, 6 nonjudicial punishment proceedings for violations of Articles 86 (unauthorized absence), 90 (willfully disobeying a superior commissioned officer), 91 (insubordinate conduct towards a master chief petty officer), 92 (failure to obey written regulation), 95 (resistance), 112 (drunk on duty), 112a (wrongful use of a controlled substance) and 134 (unlawful entry) of the UCMJ. The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1000936

    Original file (ND1000936.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT Applicant’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.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1001749

    Original file (ND1001749.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...