Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801666
Original file (ND0801666.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-STG3, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20080805
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) 19920318 - 19920607                Active: 19920608-19931031
19960327 - 19980109
Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment: 19980109     Period of E nlistment : Years Extension         Date of Discharge: 20021205
Length of Service : Y ear s M onth s 28 D a ys      Education Level:        Age at Enlistment:      AFQT: 90
Highest Rank /Rate : E-5    Evaluation M arks: Performance:   3.83 ( 6 )         Behavior: 3.50 ( 6 )        OTA: 3.70
Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      Rifle Pistol (2X) SSDR (2x) (2X) (2X) (Coast Guard) Enlisted Surface Warfare Specialist.

Periods of UA : 20021118 (2 ½ hours)
20021119-20021120 (27 ½ hours)

NJP : 1
- 20021127 : Art icle 112a ( Drug use, illegal drug use methamphetamines )
Article 86 (U A), 2 specifications
 A rticle 90 (Disobeyed a lawful order from a commissioned officer)
Article 91 (Disobeyed a lawful order from a chief petty officer ) , 2 specifications
 Awarded : Susp ended :

S CM : SPCM: C C : Retention Warnings:

Types of Documents Submitted/reviewed

 Related to Military Service:     
DD 214:         Service/ 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 Congress m ember :

Other Documentation (Describe) :




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

Applicant’s Issues
1. Discharge was based on one isolated incident.
2 . Command did not provide her with proper medical care for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) which contributed to her misconduct.
3 . Inappropriate characterization of discharge.
Decision

Date : 20 08 1121             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

Issue 1: (Equity) RELIEF NOT WARRANTED. The Applicant claims her discharge was unjust since her drug abuse was one isolated incident in 57 months of honorable service . 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 NJP for violations of the Unifo r m Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Art icle 86 (UA), 2 specifications; Article 90 (Disobeyed a lawful order from a commissioned officer); Article 91 (Disobeyed a lawful order from a chief petty officer), 2 specifications; and Article 112a (Drug use, illegal drug use methamphetamines). The NDRB advises the Applicant certain serious offenses, even though isolated, warrant separation from the service in order to maintain proper order and discipline. Violation of Article 112a is one such offense requiring mandatory separation regardless of time in service or grade. Violations of this policy result in , at a minimum, mandatory processing for an
administrative separation which usually results in an unfavorable characterization of discharge or, at a maximum, a punitive discharge and possible confinement if adjudicated and awarded as part of a sentence by a special or general court-martial.
The Applicant’s willful f ailure to uphold the standards of conduct of the US Navy f alls far short of w hat is expected from a Sailor of her time in grade and time in service. The command did not pursue a punitive discharge but opted instead for an administrative discharge. Board determined the awarded discharge characterization was appro p riate and an upgrade would be inappropriate.
Issue s 2 : ( ) . The Applicant claims she suffers from depression, P ost Traumatic S tress D isorder (PTSD) from two sexual assault incidents , and chemical dependency. She claims her alcohol problem lead to her drug abuse. D espite repeated attempts to seek help, the Applicant states her command ignored her request s . 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 medical records clearly document from April 1998 , when she first complained she was flashed by a male co-worker while standing duty , until her discharge in December 2002, she was routinely seen by Mental Health Professionals for a multitude of issue to include : PTSD from sexual assault; relation ship problems; alcohol and drug abuse; and depression . Additionally, her record contains recommendations to attend S . A . R . D . due to her abuse of alcohol. S.A.R.D. reports s he was not found to be alcohol dependent because her alcohol abuse was episodic and not continual. In a 6 April 2000 Psychological E valuation, the Applicant herself denies significant alcohol problems . Each psychological evaluation finds her fit for duty.

Based on evidence found in her medical record , which clearly demonstrates she was routinely seen by mental health professionals who addressed her psychological issues, the Board determined the claim her command did not provide proper medical care was without merit and an upgrade w ould be inappropriate.

Issue 3 : (Equity) RELIEF NOT WARRANTED. The Applicant claims since she was a self-re ferral for drug dependency, she should have received a “ General (Under Honorable Conditions) ” discharge vice the “ Under Other Than Honorable ” characterization she received. In September 2002, the Applicant self-admitted to her command she was chemically dependent

having abused methamphetamines. From 30 September 2002 until 25 October 2002 s he attended a S.A.R.D. Level II Intensive Outpatient Program to address her drug problem. In her attached statement, the Applicant acknowledges she was informed if she had a positive drug test after completing the drug treatment program she would be processed for discharge from the U . S . Navy. Despite having successfully completed the training, the Applicant tested positive on three subsequent urinalysis after her release from the program. The Board determined due to the documented post-rehab ilitation drug abuse, an upgrade was not warranted.

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 Regulation/Law

A . The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), re-issued October 2002, effective 22 August 2002 until 28 April 2005, Ar ticle 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 or for any basis wherein an Other Than Honorable Discharge is authorized, 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 | 2015_Navy | ND1500396

    Original file (ND1500396.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After an exhaustive review, the NDRB determined that the Applicant’s claim of MST and other military trauma did not mitigate the Applicant’s misconduct. ” 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 recharacterization solely on the issue of obtaining veterans...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501201

    Original file (ND0501201.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requested that her characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions). Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant’s DD Form 214 (2)Separation travel orders, dated July 13, 2004 Applicant’s DD Form 149 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: USNR...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00295

    Original file (ND01-00295.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I was 17 years old at the time and that told me that he wanted me out of the picture. (c) Commanding Officer's Nonjudicial punishment of 2 May 1992, for violation of UCMJ Article 121 (larceny).940111: Applicant advised of her rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge Board.920203: An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence and by unanimous vote, found that the applicant...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500248

    Original file (ND0500248.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    2: "After a review of the Former Service Members (FSM) DD Form 293 Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States and all of the evidence assembled for review, we continue to note the contention of the appellant in her request for a discharge upgrade of her current discharge of Bad conduct to that of Honorable.The FSM served on active service from January 6, 1992 to March 11, 1994 at which time she was discharged for court martial...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1200475

    Original file (ND1200475.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ” 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. Additionally, the NDRB does not have the authority to change a narrative reason for separation to one indicating a medical disability or...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600228

    Original file (ND0600228.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    [Extracted from Commanding Officer’s Ltr, dtd April 19, 2005].050112: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with the least favorable characterization of service as under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.050112: Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult with counsel, elected to waive all rights except the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation.050122: COMCARSTRKGRU...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600091

    Original file (ND0600091.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable or general (under honorable conditions). Naval Forces Marianas directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct drug abuse. Regarding the Applicant's request for an upgrade to obtain benefits, the Veterans Administration determines eligibility for post-service benefits not the Naval Discharge Review Board.

  • USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0600139

    Original file (MD0600139.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. My error in judgment had scarred my otherwise exemplarity record.” Documentation In addition to the service and medical records, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant’s DD Form 214 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: USMCR (DEP) 20020610 -...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01361

    Original file (ND03-01361.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. 941208: An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence and by unanimous vote, found that the Applicant had committed misconduct due to drug abuse, that the misconduct warranted separation, and recommended discharge general under honorable conditions. Verifiable proof of any post-service accomplishments must be provided in order for the Applicant...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1201322

    Original file (ND1201322.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    If the commanding officer determines the urinalysis was conducted properly and without administrative errors and the use was wrongful,then the member shall be processed for administrative separation.Based on being found guilty of violating UCMJ Article 112a at NJP, the NDRB determined the assigned Narrative Reason for Separation was proper and no other Narrative Reason for Separation more accurately describes why the Applicant was discharged. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review...