Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1002282
Original file (ND1002282.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-AM3, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20100922
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 20020726 - 20020820        Active:   20020821 - 20060601 HON

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20060602     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20070509      Highest Rank/Rate: AM3
Length of Service : Y ear ( s ) M onth ( s ) 07 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 73
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: 3.0 ( 2 )      Behavior: 2.5 ( 2 )        OTA: 2.71

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):     

Periods of UA /C ONF :

NJP:     SCM:     SPCM:    C C :

Retention Warning Counseling :
- 20021119: For your failure to disclose your pre-service civil involvement/convictions of possession of marijuana in
June 1997 and possession of cocaine in September 1997.

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

The NDRB did note administrative error(s) on the original DD Form 214:

          “ CONTINUOUS HONORABLE ACTIVE SERVICE FROM 020821 UNTIL 060601 ”
        
The NDRB will recommend to the Commander, Navy Personnel Command, that the DD 214 be corrected as appropriate.
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:           Rehabilitation/Treatment:                  Criminal Records:       
         Personal Documentation :           Community Service:                References:     
         Department of VA letter:                  Oth er Documentation:    
                  Additional Statements :
          From Applicant:            From /To Representation:            From /To Congress m ember :        


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

Applicant’s Issues

 1.        The Applicant argues inconsistencies in A dministrati ve S eparation B oard procedures.
2.       The Applicant contends his discharge is inequitable , because it was based on an isolated incident in 58 months of service .

Decision

Date: 20 1 1 1117             Location: Washington D.C .        R epresentation :

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 g overnment al affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the Applicant. T he Board did complete a thorough review of the circumstances that led to discharge and the discharge process to ensure discharge met the pertinent standards of equity and propriety. The Applicant’s record of service included NAVPERS 1070/613 (Page 13) warning . The Applicant had a pre-service drug waiver for using marijuana prior to entering the Navy. Based on an Article 112a violation, processing for administ rative separation is mandatory. When notified of administrative separation processing using the procedure, the Applicant rights to consult with a qualified coun sel and request an administrative board but waived his right to submit a written statement .

: (Decisional) ( ) RELIEF NOT WARRANTED. The Applicant contends there were inconsistencies in the A dministrati ve S eparation B oard procedures. He implies that the THC metabolite level in his urine sample did not meet or exceed the Department of Defense cutoff level. The government presumes regularity in the conduct of its affairs. The Applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support his issue. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the Applicant produced any evidence, to support the contention that the THC m etabolite level in his initial urine sample was lower than that of the DoD c onfirmation level. The initial test of the sample revealed a THC m et abol ite level of 1 28 ng/ml. A 50 percent reduction would result in a 64 ng/ml level , which still exceeds the 1 5 ng /ml confirmation level threshold for THC. The Applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity in this case. However, even if the Applicant could show a contradic tion in the administrative discharge process, such contradicti on would neither amount to a justification nor to a defense for the Applicant’s own misconduct. The Applicant submitted a Letter of Deficiency and Leniency from his defense counsel after his Administrative Separation Board recommended that the Applicant be discharged with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) characterization of service. The NDRB found no merit in the defense counsel’s arguments for leniency , because the Applicant’s misconduct was an isolated incident. Additionally, it was found that the government’s attorney did not interfere with the members of the board. As stated in Issue 2, violation of Article 112a requires mandatory processing for administrative separation. Most servicemembers who are found guilty of violation of Article 112a receive an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions characterization of service. The Applicant received a more lenient General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge. Relief denied.
: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant conten ds his discharge is inequitable , because it was ba sed on an isolated incident in 58 months of service with no other adverse action. Despite a servicemember’s prior record of service, certain serious offenses, even though isolated, warrant separation from the Navy to maintain proper order and discipline. Violation of Article 112a is one such offense requiring mandatory processing for administrative separation regardless of grade or time in service. This 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 was found guilty of violation of Article 112a. However, his command did not pursue a punitive discharge but opted instead for the more lenient administrative discharge. Relief denied.


Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s s ummary of s ervice, r ecord e ntries and d ischarge p rocess, the Board found Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall and the narrative reason for separation shall remain . The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing for a period of fifteen years from the date of discharge. The Applicant is directed to the Addendum, specifically the paragraphs titled Additional Reviews, Automatic Upgrades, and Post-Service Conduct .

Pertinent Regulation/Law

 A. The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 11, effective 29 April 2005 until
1 June 2008, 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 .


ADDENDUM: Information for the Applicant

 Complaint Procedures : If you believe 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 : 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. 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. There are veterans organizations such as the American Legion and the Disabled American Veterans that are willing to provide guidance to former service members in their efforts to obtain a discharge upgrade. If a former member has been discharged for more than 15 years, has already been granted a personal appearance hearing or has otherwise exhausted their 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 U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determines eligibility for post-service benefits, not the NDRB. 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.
Employment/Educational Opportunities : The NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment or educational opportunities. Regulations limit the NDRB’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 BCNR can make changes to reenlistment codes. Additionally, the NDRB 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 is processed subsequently for an administrative involuntary separation or is referred to a court martial for misconduct, the disability evaluation is suspended 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 BCNR can grant this type of narrative reason change.

 Automatic Upgrades - There is no law or regulation that provides for an unfavorable discharge to be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct subsequent to leaving naval service.
Post-Service Conduct : The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. Outstanding post-service conduct, 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, is considered during Board reviews. Documentation to support a post-service conduct upgrade includes, but is not limited to: a verifiable continuous employment record; marriage and children’s birth certificates (if applicable); character witness statements; documentation of community or church service; certification of non-involvement with civil authorities; evidence of financial stability or letters of good standing from banks, credit card companies, or other financial institutions; attendance at or completion of higher education (official transcripts); and documentation of a drug-free lifestyle. 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 in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member’s overall character.

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 NDRB 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 | 2014_Navy | ND1400092

    Original file (ND1400092.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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900632

    Original file (ND0900632.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 Pertinent Regulation/Law (cont) B. ” 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600525

    Original file (ND0600525.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | 2010_Navy | ND1001307

    Original file (ND1001307.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The NDRB determined an upgrade would be inappropriate.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entriesand discharge process, the Board found Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall and the narrative reason for separation shall remain .The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing for a period of fifteen years from the date of discharge. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1102016

    Original file (ND1102016.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Based on the Article 112a violation, processing for administrative separation is mandatory. ” 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 | 2011_Navy | ND1101712

    Original file (ND1101712.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant could have provided documentation as detailed in the Post-Service Conduct paragraph in the Addendum , however, completion of these items 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 establishes that the in-service misconduct was an aberration. Relief denied.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1101806

    Original file (ND1101806.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Issue 5: (Decisional) (Propriety) RELIEF NOT WARRANTED. She tested positive for THC, was informed of discharge proceedings, elected an administrative separation board, and was properly and equitably discharged with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) characterization of service for Misconduct (Drug Abuse). ” 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1101930

    Original file (MD1101930.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.The Marine Corps Separation...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0902519

    Original file (ND0902519.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The command did not pursue a punitive discharge but opted instead for an administrative discharge.While in-service, the Applicant had an opportunity to defend himself, but he waived his rights to:refuse commanding officer’s NJP and request trial by court-martial; appeal the NJP; request an administrative board proceeding; and submit a written statement to the Separation Authority.The Applicant signed the USNAlcohol and Drug Policy on 3 Jun 1999 and was fully aware there is a zero-tolerance...

  • USMC | DRB | 2007_Marine | MD0700581

    Original file (MD0700581.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 Summary of ServicePrior Service: Inactive: USMCR (DEP)20021122 - 20030907Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 20030908Years Contracted:; Extension: Date of Discharge:20060214Length of Service: 02 Yrs 05Mths07 DysLost Time:Days UA: Days Confined: 24Education...