Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1301577
Original file (ND1301577.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-FCSA, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20130717
Characterization of Service Received:
Narrative Reason for Discharge: SECRETARIAL AUTHORITY
Authority for Discharge: MILPERSMAN

Applicant’s Request:      Characterization change to:      
         Narrative Reason change to:      
        
Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive:         US N R (DEP)        20090611 - 20100610     Active:  

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20100611     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20130312      Highest Rank/Rate: FCSN
Length of Service: Y ear s M onth s 02 D a ys
Education Level:        AFQT: 66
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: 2.0 ( 2 )      Behavior: 1.3 ( 2 )        OTA: 1.7

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):     

Periods of UA /C ONF :

NJP :

- 20120119 :      Article (Failure to obey order or regulation)
         Article (Wrongful use, possession, etc., of controlled substances , 2 specifications : D Amphetamines 186 ng/mL, as evidenced by NAVDRUGLAB report of 09 January 2012 )
         Awarded: Suspended: (15 days suspended)

S CM :   SPCM:   C C :     Retention Warning Counseling :

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. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), change 23 effective 2 2 May 20 08 , Article 1910-1 64 , SEPARATION BY REASON OF BEST INTEREST OF THE SERVICE (BIOTS) .
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 he did not knowingly consume prohibited substances.
2.       The Applicant contends an administrative separation board found the preponderance of evidence did not support misconduct by commission of a serious offense or drug abuse and did not recommend separation , however, his commanding officer subsequently separated him .
3 .       The Applicant contends his post-service conduct is worthy of consideration for an upgrade.

Decision

Date: 20 1 4 0227             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 sta ndards of equity and propriety. The Applicant’s record of service included for o f the Uniform Code of Mil itary Justice (UCMJ): Article 92 ( Failure to obey order or regulation ) and Article 112a ( Wrongful use, possession, etc., of controlled substances , 2 specifications). When notified of administrative separation processing using the procedure, the Applicant exercised rights to consult with a qua lified counsel and request an administrative board . By a vote of 3 to 0, the administrative board found that the preponderance of evidence did not support the basis for separation by misconduct due to commission of a serious offense and misconduct due to drug abuse. Based on the Applicant’s admission to using bath salts on 0 1 Jan uary 2012 and 02 January 2012 and a positive urinalysis for D-Amphetamine conducted on 0 3 January 2012, the Commanding Officer, Training Support Center, San Diego, did not agree with the administrative board ’ s findings and recommendations and recommended to Commander, Navy Personnel Command that the Applicant be separated in the Best Interest of the Service. On 08 February 2013, the Chief of Naval Personnel recommended to the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) that the Applicant be separated in the Best Interest of the Service with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) characterization of service. On 21 February 2013, the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) approved the Applicant’s separation in the Best Interest of the Service with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) characterization of service.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends he did not knowingly consume prohibited substances. The Applicant also contends an administrative separation board found the preponderance of evidence did not support misconduct by commission of a serious offense or drug abuse and did not recommend separation , however, his commanding officer subsequently separated him . The Applicant stated that although he knowingly consumed a substance that contained “bath salts , ” he did not know that “bath salts” were a prohibited substance. The evidence of record clearly shows the Applicant was found guilty at NJP of violating UCMJ Articles 92 and 112a as evidenced b y his positive urinalysis for D- Amphetamine . Violations of Articles 92 and 112a warrant administrative separation processing. As part of the separation process, the Applicant exercised his right to appear before an administrative separation board, which found that the preponderance of evidence did not support the basis for separation by misconduct due to commission of a serious offense and misconduct due to drug abuse. The findings of an administrative separation board are recommendations to the S eparati on A uthority and are not final dispositions . The Applicant’s commanding officer, after reviewing the findings of guilt at NJP and the findings from the administrative separation board that reported the Applicant did not meet the requirements to be administratively separated for Misconduct (Serious Offense) and Misconduct (Drug Abuse), determined he was no longer fit for continued service and recommended he be separated in the Best Interest of the Service, a recommendation that was eventually approved by the Separation Authority. Per Naval Military Personnel Manual Article 1910-164, only the Secretary of the Navy can approve this type of separation, and he has delegated this authority down to the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower

and Reserve Affairs). A Best Interest of the Service discharge can be directed for any member prior to expiration of service after determining such separation is in the best interest of the service. Since the Applicant was administratively separated and not separated upon expiration of enlistment or fulfillment of service obligation, the characterization of service is determined by the quality of the member’s total performance of duty and conduct during the current enlistment, including the reason for separation. Other considerations shall be given to the member’s length of service, grade, aptitude, and physical and mental condition. Based on the Applicant’s record of service, the NDRB determined the Applicant’s service was honest and faithful but significant negative aspects of his conduct or performance of duty outweighed the positive aspects of his service record, and the awarded characterization of service was warranted. Relief denied.
: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends his post-service conduct is worthy of consideration for 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, transcripts from North American Trade Schools indicating a 4.0 GPA , a certificate of academic excellence from North American Trade Schools, documentation that the Applicant’s commanding officer was subsequently relieved of duty, and a letter from his mother . The Applicant could have provided additional 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 t he characterization of service received was appropriate considering the length of service and UCMJ violations. 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

  • USMC | DRB | 2012_Marine | MD1201818

    Original file (MD1201818.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2012_Marine | MD1201377

    Original file (MD1201377.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Rather, three months after this incident, he went to his third NJP in his enlistment and was found guilty of violating UCMJ Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation) for using Spice and Bath Salts, both of which violate the Marine Corps drug policy and warrant mandatory administrative separation processing. ” 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 | 2014_Marine | MD1400274

    Original file (MD1400274.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The record also shows the Applicant had significant misconduct during his misconduct, including a violation of the Marine Corps zero-tolerance drug policy, which requires mandatory processing for administrative separation. Further, administrative discharge processing is administrative in nature and not considered a form of punishment. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application is...

  • USMC | DRB | 2015_Marine | MD1500007

    Original file (MD1500007.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.

  • USMC | DRB | 2012_Marine | MD1201649

    Original file (MD1201649.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Based on the Article 112a violation, processing for administrative separation is mandatory. After a complete review of the record and post-service documentation, the NDRB found the awarded characterization of service was inequitable and that relief in the form of an upgrade in the characterization of service to General is warranted.Relief granted.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entries and discharge process,...

  • USMC | DRB | 2012_Marine | MD1200730

    Original file (MD1200730.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ” During the Applicant’s enlistment, he was found guilty at NJP of violating UCMJ Articles 92 and 111 and received six 6105 retention warning counselings. Per the MARCORSEPMAN, the Applicant had a minimum of two incidents, received and violated 6105 warnings, and met the requirements for administrative separation processing for a Pattern of Misconduct. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided...

  • USMC | DRB | 2013_Marine | MD1301748

    Original file (MD1301748.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 | ND1101838

    Original file (ND1101838.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 | 2008_Navy | ND0801327

    Original file (ND0801327.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant should be aware 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 mitigates the reason for the characterization of discharge.Besides the personal statement provided on the DD Form-293, the Applicant failed to provide any additional statements or evidence of post service accomplishments. After a thorough review of the available...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1201719

    Original file (ND1201719.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Relief denied.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 has been conducted, former members are...