Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2014_Navy | ND1400566
Original file (ND1400566.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-LSSA, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20140214
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)        20081204 - 20090113     Active:  

Pre-Service Drug Waiver:

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20090114     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20130102      Highest Rank/Rate: LSSN
Length of Service: Y ear( s ) M onth( s ) 20 D a y ( s )
 Education Level:        AFQT: 51
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: 3.8 ( 5 )      Behavior: 2.8 ( 5 )        OTA: 3.25

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):     

Periods of UA /C ONF :

NJP :

- 20121019 :      Article (Wrongful use, possession, etc. of controlled substances)
          Awarded: Suspended:

S CM :    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:

          “ 03 11 20 ”

The NDRB will recommend to the Commander, Navy Personnel Command, PERS-312A, 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. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 36, effective 18 August 2011 until Present, Article 1910-142, SEPARATION BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT - COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE.
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 .



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

Applicant’s Issues

 1.        The Applicant contends his command conspired against him to ensure he could not self-refer his substance abuse problem so they could punish and punitively discharge him.
2.       The Applicant contends his self-referral to his father, a former Navy Chief and D rug and Alcohol Programs Advisor (D APA ) , as well as his command DAPA should have factored into how he was treated and discharged.
3.       The Applicant contends his command’s DAPA program was not set up correctly, failed to provide the required access to a command DAPA, provided inadequate treatment, and failed in setting up an appropriate aftercare or follow - up program.
4.       The Applicant contends he was days away from h onorably completing his enlistment when he was discharged.

Decision

Date : 20 1 4 0731    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 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 Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 112a ( Wrongful use, possession, etc. of controlled substances , one specific ation ) . The Applicant did not have a pre-service drug waiver prior to entering the Navy. Based on the Article 112a violation, processing for administrative 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 . However, per the Applicant ’ s DD Form 214, the Separation Code HKQ indicates the Applicant waived his right to an administrative board.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends his command conspired against him to ensure he could not self-refer his substance abuse problem so they could punish and punitively discharge him . 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. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the Applicant produced any evidence, to support the contention that his command knew of his illegal drug use and conspired against his being able to self-refer for treatment. T he record of evidence clearly shows the Applicant’s self-referral came after his selection for a random urinalysis and after having been verbally warned by his Chief that confessions of drug abuse would have to be reported. Relief denied.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends his self-referral to his father, a former Navy Chief and DAPA, as well as his command DAPA should have factored into how he was treated and discharged. The Applicant’s command determined that he was not a self-referral, and his commanding officer found him guilty at NJP of violating UCMJ Article 112a, which requires mandatory processing for administrative separation regardless of grade , performance, 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 command did not pursue a punitive discharge but opted instead for the more lenient administrative discharge. The NDRB determined is characterization of service was completely in line with what others received for similar service and misconduct. Relief denied.




: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends his command’s DAPA program was not set up correctly, failed to provide the required access to a command DAPA, provided inadequate treatment, and failed in setting up an appropriate aftercare or follow - up program. 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. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the Applicant produced any evidence, to support the contention that his command did not adequately set up its DAPA program or that its inadequacy prevented the Applicant from self-referring for drug abuse . The record of evidence shows the Applicant spoke to a command DAPA, was sent to and completed a substance abuse treatment program , and was provided resources and points of contact for continued treatment after discharge. The Applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity in this case. Relief denied.

4 : (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends he was days away from h onorably completing his enlistment when he was discharged . 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 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. 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 | 2006_Navy | ND0600264

    Original file (ND0600264.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I am requesting Board action to upgrade my discharge to Honorable for 3 reasons: 1. Member was referred as the result of self referral for drug abuse with a negative urinalysis on 7 September 1993.931015: Command DAPA recommended to Legal Officer that Applicant be administratively separated due to admitting to drug abuse with a negative urinalysis.931030*: Applicant from confinement (24 days). Accordingly, it is strongly recommended that ATAR F_(Applicant) be administratively discharge...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600059

    Original file (ND0600059.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION 030728: Commanding Officer, USS ABRAHAM LINCOLN, made a recommendation to Commanding Officer, COMCRUDESGRU THREE, regarding Applicant’s administrative processing due to drug abuse. 030729: COMCRUDESGRU THREE, directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1000892

    Original file (ND1000892.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

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

  • NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1100216

    Original file (ND1100216.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. After thorough examination of the supporting documentation submitted by the Applicant and the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board determined that commendable post-service conduct was indicative of the Applicant’s character, thereby providing a basis for which partial relief could be granted. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900220

    Original file (ND0900220.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Although the Applicant provided no post-service documentation, post-service conduct does not have to be taken into consideration based on the NDRB’s review of the case.After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Record Entries, Discharge Process, the Board found Pertinent Regulation/Law A. ” Additional Reviews : Subsequent to a document review, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application is...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501056

    Original file (ND0501056.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND05-01056 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20050606. The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions). Patient states he is seeking an in-house drug treatment program.

  • USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0600248

    Original file (MD0600248.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    If I am successful I getting my discharge upgraded to honorable and my reinlistment code upgraded I would really consider going back into active duty.”Additional issues submitted by Applicant’s counsel/representative (Disabled American Veterans): “Dear Chairperson: 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 evidence assembled for review, we continue to note the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2014_Navy | ND1400316

    Original file (ND1400316.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The board determined by a vote of 3-0 that a preponderance of evidence supported misconduct (drug abuse) and recommended that the Applicant should be administratively separated from the Navy Under Other Than Honorable Conditions. Navy regulations for administrative separation for drug abuse provide that if a Navy service member seeks help for drug abuse from a qualified self-referral agent, and is subsequently determined by medical authorities to be substance dependent, the service member’s...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0800806

    Original file (MD0800806.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT Applicant’s Issues 1. The Applicant’s command was not prohibited from using this evidence of illegal drug use for punishment or for characterizing his service upon administrative separation. However, the record of evidence does not support the contention the Applicant’s drug abuse is the result of his PTSD or that because of PTSD he was not responsible for his actions of misconduct.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700801

    Original file (ND0700801.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 Service Prior Service: Inactive: USNR (DEP) 19960531 - 19961203 Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 19960613Years Contracted:; Extension: Date of Discharge: 19961203 Length of Service: 00 Yrs 05Mths21 Dys Lost Time: Days UA: Days Confined:...