Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1201444
Original file (ND1201444.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-HA, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20120626
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)        19941028 - 19950416     Active:  

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 19950417     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 19980625      Highest Rank/Rate: HN
Length of Service : Y ear ( s ) M onth ( s ) 09 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 52
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: NFIR         Behavior: NFIR   OTA: NFIR

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):     

Periods of UA /C ONF :

NJP:

- 19980326 :      Article (Wrongful use, possession, etc. of controlled substances - distribute 10 tablets of Lysergic Acid Diethalamide )
         Awarded: Susp ended:

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:

          Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, should read: “ NATIONAL DEFENSE SERVICE MEDAL, MERITORIOUS UNIT COMMENDATION, LETTER OF APPRECIATION, CERTIFICATE OF COMMENDATION ”
         “ ”
         “ MILPERSMAN 1910-146 ”

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 :        

Pertinent Regulation/Law

 A. The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 18, effective 12 December 1997 until 19 May 1999, 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 .



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

Applicant’s Issues

 1.        The Applicant contends she was told her discharge would be upgraded after 120 days.
2.       The Applicant contends there was no evidence of wrong doing.
3.       The Applicant contends she was coerced into accepting an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge.
4.       The Applicant contends her in-service conduct warrants an upgrade.
5.       The Applicant contends her post-service conduct warrants an upgrade.
Decision

Date : 20 1 3 0410             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 discharg e 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. 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 - distribute 10 tablets of Lysergic Acid Diethalamide) . The Applicant a pre-service drug waiver for using illicit drugs 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 . However, the Applicant has a separation code of GKK on her DD Form 214, which indicates she elected to appear before an administrative board.

: (Nondecisional) The Applicant contends she was told her discharge would be upgraded after 120 days. 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. Neither the Navy nor the NDRB automatically upgrades unfavorable discharges after a service member has been separated.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends there was no evidence of wrong doing. The record of evidence shows the Applicant waived her rights to trial by court-martial and was found guilty at NJP of wrongfully distributing 10 tablets of Lysergic Acid Diethalamide . To be found guilty at NJP, the commanding officer only has to believe by a preponderance of the evidence that the Applicant committed the offense. If the Applicant felt s he was mistakenly charged with a crime, it was h er obligation to contest those charges at the time they were made. The Applicant submitted no evidence to support h er contention, therefore, the NDRB must rely upon the presumption of regularity in the conduct of Government affairs. Relief denied.
: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends she was coerced into accepting an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge and further contends that she was pressured due to issues with her husband and being cornered on her way to the emergency room. The NDRB was unable to review the Applicant’s complete discharge package, as it was not included in h er official service record. However, t he separation code on the Applicant’s DD Form 214 indicates that she had a n administrative separation board. The NDRB presumed regularity in governmental affairs in that the Separation Authority and Staff Judge Advocate review of the discharge package ensured that the Applicant was afforded all of her administrative rights pursuant to the separation process. The Applicant did not submit any documentation to rebut any presumption of regularity in governmental affairs by the NDRB. The NDRB discerned no impropriety in the separation proceedings. The Applicant warranted an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions characterization. Relief denied.



: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends her in-service conduct warrants an upgrade. Based on the Applicant’s record of service, the NDRB determined the Applicant engaged in conduct involving one or more acts or omissions that constituted a significant departure from the conduct expected of members of the Naval Service, and the awarded characterization of service was warranted. Although she stated that she was initially presented with a DD Form 214 with an Honorable characterization on it, this was likely a draft document that would have been updated with her properly assigned characterization of Under Other Than Honorable Conditions during the final preparation of the form. Relief denied.
5 : (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends her post-service conduct warrants an upgrade. The NDRB considers 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. The Applicant provided a personal statement, a professional certificate, and one character reference. 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. The Board determined that the documentation submitted by the Applicant does not demonstrate if in-service misconduct was an aberration. The characterization of service received was appropriate considering the length of service and UCMJ violation. 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.


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

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00905

    Original file (ND02-00905.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00905 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020610, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable or general/under honorable conditions. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:None PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: USNR (DEP) 940819 - 960402 COG Active:...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00586

    Original file (ND02-00586.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    001027: Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) approved Applicant's discharge with a discharge characterization of general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 001228 with a discharge characterization of general (under honorable conditions) for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A). The Applicant

  • NAVY | DRB | 2015_Navy | ND1401698

    Original file (ND1401698.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant’s record of service included NAVPERS 1070/613 (Page 13) warnings, and for of the UCMJ: Article 112a (Wrongful use, possession, etc., of controlled substances, 7 specifications). Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entries, and discharge process, the Board found Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall remain BAD CONDUCT and the narrative reason for separation shall remain...

  • USMC | DRB | 2015_Marine | MD1500248

    Original file (MD1500248.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entries, and discharge process, the Board found Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall remain BAD CONDUCT DISCHARGE and the narrative reason for separation shall remain COURT-MARTIAL. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been...

  • USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1101752

    Original file (MD1101752.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. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal...

  • USMC | DRB | 2013_Marine | MD1300251

    Original file (MD1300251.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.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00207

    Original file (ND02-00207.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board’s vote was unanimous that the character of the discharge shall not change. ]990423: Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse (use). After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (C and D).Issue 1.

  • USMC | DRB | 2002_Marine | MD02-00120

    Original file (MD02-00120.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD02-00120 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 011017, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. In the acknowledgement letter to the applicant, the applicant was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. It is my opinion that I wasn't accurately discharged based upon the fact that in 26 months of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00924

    Original file (ND01-00924.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00924 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010711, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. Thank you for your time and understanding I served the navy proudly and admirably for two years, with the exception of one stupid mistake. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE...

  • USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0600605

    Original file (MD0600605.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD06-00605 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20060329. The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. I have never done drugs in the Marine Corps and I have never done this drug in my life.