Upgrade.Vet

NAVY | DRB | 2014_Navy | ND1401029

Original file (ND1401029.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-EMFR, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20140429

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)        19 990811 - 19 991122     Active:

Pre-Service Drug Waiver:

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 19 991123     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 200 11221      Highest Rank/Rate: EMFA
Length of Service : Y ear ( s ) M onth ( s ) 29 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 42
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: 2.0 ( 2 )      Behavior: 1.0 ( 2 )        OTA: 1.83

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):

NJP:

- 20 01 1 026 :      Article (Absent without leave , 3 specifications )
         Specification 1: 20010812-20010813, 1 day
         Specification 2: 20010825-20011113, 19 days
         Specification 3: 20011023-20011024, 1 day
         Article (Missing mov ement on 20011105 )
         Awarded: CCU Suspended:

- 20011116 :      Article (Wrongful use, possession, etc. of controlled substances , Marijuana , 22 ng/mL )
         Awarded: Suspended:

SCM:

- 20010120 :       Art icle (Absent without leave from 2 00 0 1113- 20 001214, 31 days)
         Article 87 (Missing movement on 2 00 0 1128)
         Sentence :

SPCM:    C C :

Retention Warning Counseling :

- 20010430 :       For Summary Court-Martial held on 20 January 2001 for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 86 , Unauthorized Absence , and Article 87 , Missing Ship’s Movement

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 33, effective 16 July 2001 until 21 August 2002, 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 seeks an upgrade to receive service benefits .
2.       The Applicant contends youth and immaturity were contributing factors in his misconduct .
3.       The Applicant contends he was innocent of drug use , and he doubts that he actually tested positive on a urinalysis .
4.       The Applicant contends his post-service conduct is worthy of an upgrade .

Decision

Date : 20 1 4 0826            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 includ e 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 NAV PERS 1070/613 (Page 13) warning , for o f the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article ( Absent without leave , : 1 day, 19 days, 1 day ), Article ( Missing movement , ), and Article ( Wrongful use, possession, etc. of controlled substances , marijuana, 22 ng/ml), and for of the UCMJ : Article ( Absence without leave , 31 days ) and Article (Missing movement, ) . The Applicant a pre-service drug waiver for using marijuana prior to entering the Navy. Based on the 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, submit a written statement , and request an administrative board .

: (Nondecisional) The Applicant seeks an upgrade to receive 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.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends youth and immaturity were contributing factors in his misconduct . While the Applicant may feel his youth and immaturity were the underlying causes of his misconduct, the record clearly reflects his willful misconduct and demonstrated he was unfit for further service. The evidence of record does not demonstrate the Applicant was not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions. Relief denied.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends he was innocent of drug use , and he doubts that he actually tested positive on a urinalysis . The record of evidence clearly shows the Naval Drug Lab in Jacksonville, Florida tested his urine sample and detected 22 ng/ml of THC as documented in official message traffic to his ship on 6 November 2001. Urinalysis specimens arriving at a Navy Drug Screening Laboratory (NDSL) are inspected for container damage or evidence of tampering, with particular attention to the condition of the box seals, which should be intact with the command’s Urinalysis Program Coordinator’s signature printed across the taped box seams. After the package has passed this inspection, lab technicians unpack the urine specimens and carefully check that all bottles in the box correspond to the sample entries written on the accompanying chain of custody form (DD 2624). The bottles are then removed and inspected with the technicians noting any specimen container discrepancies, such as broken bottles, damage of tamper evidence seals, missing, incorrect, or incomplete social security numbers on the bottle labels or DD 2624s, and leakage of urine. The lab reports all discrepancies back to the command. If the discrepancies are serious enough to raise doubt in the validity of the results, the samples will not be tested. The NDSL conducts an initial screening test on all specimens and negative specimens are discarded.

If a sample screens positive during the initial screening, it is then tested a second time. If the sample screens negative during the second screening, it is discarded. If the sample screens positive a second time, it is considered a “presumptive positive.” All “presumptive positive” specimens undergo a Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry confirmation test. The specimen must have tested positive in all three tests (screen, rescreen and confirmatory) and passed scrutiny in numerous reviews by drug testing experts prior to being certified as a positive result and reported to the originating command. This certification, which is made by a senior chemist, is the final seal of approval necessary prior to reporting the specimen as a positive. If the final certifying official has any doubt as to the accuracy, scientific validity or legal defensibility of the test results, the specimen is reported as negative i n favor of the service member.

Further, t he record clearly shows the Applicant waived his rights to trial by court-martial and an administrative separation board. If the Applicant felt he was mistakenly charged with a crime, it was his obligation to contest those charges at the time they were made. During a trial or administrative separation board, he would have had the opportunity to mount a defense against the charges. The Applicant submitted no evidence that he did not wrongfully use marijuana in service. With his earlier misconduct, the Applicant met the requirements to be administratively separated for Misconduct (Drug Abuse), Misconduct (Serious Offense), and Misconduct (Pattern of Misconduct) and was fortunate to have avoided a punitive Bad Conduct Discharge at a Special Court-Martial. The NDRB determined his administrative discharge was warranted, proper, and equitable. Relief denied.

4 : (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends his post-service conduct is worthy of 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 Six Sigma Green Belt Certificate and a statement that he has held his current job in a call center for the past year and held a job in upper management for four years before that . 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 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 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

NAVY | DRB | 2015_Navy | ND1501144

Original file (ND1501144.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

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 UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS and the narrative reason for separation shall remain MISCONDUCT (DRUG ABUSE). ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application...
NAVY | DRB | 2015_Navy | ND1401743

Original file (ND1401743.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 UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL) and the narrative reason for separation shall remain SECRETARIAL AUTHORITY. ” Additional Reviews : After a document...
NAVY | DRB | 2015_Navy | ND1500289

Original file (ND1500289.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The majority of board members at the NDRB view this as a validation of the presumption of regularity in the findings resulting from the Applicant’s sample as urinalysis specimens arriving at a Navy Drug Screening Laboratory (NDSL) are inspected for container damage or evidence of tampering, with particular attention to the condition of the box seals, which should be intact with the command’s Urinalysis Program Coordinator’s signature printed across the taped box seams. Summary: After a...
NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1201491

Original file (ND1201491.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...
NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1100520

Original file (ND1100520.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...
USMC | DRB | 2015_Marine | MD1500724

Original file (MD1500724.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 UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS and the narrative reason for separation shall remain MISCONDUCT. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has...
USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0900429

Original file (MD0900429.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

If the sample screens positive a second time it is considereda “ presumptive positive.” All “presumptive positive” specimens undergo aGC/MS confirmation test. The Board determined the characterization of service received, “Under Other Than Honorable Conditions”, was an appropriate characterization considering the length of service and the UCMJ violation involved, and based on the lack of post-service documentation provided an upgrade would be inappropriateAfter a thorough review of the...
USMC | DRB | 2015_Marine | MD1401585

Original file (MD1401585.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214 The NDRB did note administrative error(s) on the original DD Form 214: Block 28, Narrative Reason for Separation, should read: "MISCONDUCT" The NDRB will recommend to the Commandant of the Marine Corps that the DD 214 be corrected as appropriate. 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...
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...
USMC | DRB | 2015_Marine | MD1500764

Original file (MD1500764.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

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

Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2014_Navy | ND1401029

Similar Decisions