Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1201162
Original file (ND1201162.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-EOCN, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

 Application Received: 20 120430
Characterization of Service Received :
Narrative Reason for Discharge :
Authority for Discharge : M ILPERSMAN

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

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
 Inactive:         US N R (DEP)        20011115 - 20020205     Active:            20020206 - 20060126 HON

Period of Service Under Review:
 Date of Current Enlistment: 20060127              Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20070 329                        Highest Rank/Rate: EO3
Length of Service : Y ear ( s ) M onth ( s ) 03 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 31
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: 3.0 ( 2 )      Behavior: 2.5 ( 2 )                 OTA: 2.93

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      Rifle Pistol (2) (2)

Periods of UA : 20070223 - 20070228 / C ONF :

NJP:

         - 20070222 :      Article (Wrongful use, possession, etc. of controlled substances , to wit: COCAINE )
                           Awarded: NFIR Suspended: NFIR [Extracted from Eval dated 20070226]

SCM:     SPCM:    C C :      Retention Warning Counseling:

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 020206 UNTIL 060126 ”

 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:                  Other Documentation:    
                  Additional Statements:
          From Applicant:           From/To Representation:           From/To Congress member:        


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

Applicant’s Issues

 1. The Applicant seeks an upgrade to qualify for Department of Veterans Affairs ( VA ) benefits.
2. The Applicant contends his misconduct was due to in - service , non-combat - related Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) .
 3. The Applicant contends his supervisor pressured him into the misconduct.
Decision

 Date: 20 1 3 0307                     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 for o f the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article ( Wrongful use, possession, etc. of controlled substances , cocaine, ) . The Applicant a pre-service drug waiver for using marijuana 12 times prior to entering the Navy. Based on the Article 112a violation, processing for administ rative separation is mandatory. The NDRB did not have the Applicant’s administrative separation package to determine whether or not the Applicant waived rights to consult with a qualified counsel, submit a written statement, and request an administrative board or a General Court-Martial Convening Authority review .

: (Nondecisional) The Applicant seeks an upgrade to qualify for VA 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 re-characterization 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.
: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends his misconduct was due to his in - service , non-combat - related TBI . The Applicant’s record reflects two motor vehicle accidents (MVA s ) he experienced while driving overseas ; the first resulted in the Applicant sustaining injuries and his passenger being killed, and the second, which occurred within 10 days after the first accident after pressure from his supervisor, resulted in his 15 - ton military vehicle clipping a local national ’s vehicle and killing its occupant. The Applicant received medical treatment after each of these events and his record reflects no mention of TBI. The government enjoys a presumption of 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. The NDRB requested the Applicant’s medical treatment records from the VA . There was evidence to support TBI but not an official diagnosis from medical authorities. Though the Applicant may feel that T BI was the underlying cause of his misconduct, the record reflects willful misconduct that demonstrated he was unfit for further service. During his pre-separation substance abuse treatment , the Applicant admitted to heavy, chronic poly-substance drug use, dependence , and distribution to S ailors for a significant period prior to his NJP, but he state d in his taped hearing transcript with the Phoenix, A Z Regional VA O ffice on 30 M ay 2012 that prior to his admission and subsequent NJP, he had never used cocaine. The evidence of record did not show that the Applicant was either not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions. Admitted cocaine , methamphetamine, marijuana, and dependent alcohol usage were all conscious decisions to violate the ten e ts of honorable and faithful service. The NDRB determined his TBI did not mitigate his misconduct and further determined the discharge was proper and equitable. Relief denied.




: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends his supervisor was a habitual drug user and pressured the Applicant into using cocaine. The Applicant further contends that he admitted to his command of his drug use and that of his chief’s and was initially the only one punished because the command sided with the chief. Statements alone, without sufficient documentary evidence, are not enough for the NDRB to form a basis of relief. There is nothing in the record to validate the Applicant’s contentions. The Applicant was found guilty at NJP of violating UCMJ Article 112a. Despite a servicemember’s prior record of service, certain serious offenses, even though isolated, warrant separation from the to maintain proper order and discipline. Violation of Article 112a is one such offense requiring mandatory processing for administrative separation regardless of grade, performance, enlistments, awards, warfare pins, 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 received an Honorable discharge for his first enlistment from February 2002 until January 2006. Each period of enlistment is an independent obligation and characterization is determined for that specific period of time. During the Applicant’s second enlistment, he 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. The NDRB found the characterization of the Applicant’s discharge was equitable and consistent with the characterization of discharge given others in similar circumstances. 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 for additional information.

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), 701 South Courthouse Road, Suite 1001, Arlington, VA 22204-2490 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

  • USMC | DRB | 2013_Marine | MD1300874

    Original file (MD1300874.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    With this misconduct, he met the requirements for administrative separation for Misconduct (Pattern of Misconduct) and 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 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 | 2014_Marine | MD1400428

    Original file (MD1400428.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    His confessed continued use of marijuana, urinalysis confirmation of cocaine usage, and alcohol abuse as documented in his medical treatment records and an administrative counseling warning were all conscious decisions to violate the tenets of honorable and faithful service.After an exhaustive review, the NDRB determined PTSD, TBI, and the Applicant’s personal problems did not mitigate his misconduct, and his discharge was warranted, proper, and equitable. Relief denied.Summary: After a...

  • USMC | DRB | 2014_Marine | MD1400991

    Original file (MD1400991.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The NDRB conducted a thorough review of the available records, to include significant, credible evidence submitted by the Applicant. 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2012_Marine | MD1201467

    Original file (MD1201467.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The administrative board voted 3-0 that the preponderance of the evidence supported that the Applicant had conducted Misconduct (Drug Abuse) and recommended the Applicant be separated with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) characterization. The Applicant contends his command and Separation Authority failed to properly consider MARADMIN 328/10and discharged him for misconduct rather than for a physical disability. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted,...

  • USMC | DRB | 2013_Marine | MD1301271

    Original file (MD1301271.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The NDRB did not find any reference to a medical diagnosis of PTSD or TBI in the Applicant’s service record to support such a claim, and the Applicant did not provide any documentary evidence of a medical diagnosis by competent medical authorities to support such conditions.In the 10 April 2007 letter documenting his 06 April 2007 psychiatric evaluation, he was not determined to be suffering from PTSD or TBI. Relief denied.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2014_Navy | ND1400608

    Original file (ND1400608.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/To Congress member: DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD...

  • USMC | DRB | 2015_Marine | MD1500510

    Original file (MD1500510.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been...

  • USMC | DRB | 2015_Marine | MD1401598

    Original file (MD1401598.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. Nothing in the Applicant’s record indicates that PTSD/TBI were mitigating factors in the Applicant’s misconduct or drug abuse in violation of Marine Corps orders and the UCMJ. ” 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2015_Marine | MD1500601

    Original file (MD1500601.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. The Applicant’s service record documents a punitive conviction and punishment, as adjudged by a Special Court-Martial, on 15April 2005. Additionally, the NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities.

  • USMC | DRB | 2014_Marine | MD1400796

    Original file (MD1400796.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: DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD...