ex-AE2, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request


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

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive:        USNR (DEP)       19870424 - 19870517     Active:  19870518 - 19910516
                                    19910517 - 19960816
                                    20011016 - 20051013

Pre-Service Drug Waiver:

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20051014    Age at Enlistment:
Period of Enlistment: Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20060326     Highest Rank/Rate: AE1
Length of Service: Year(s) Month(s) 13 Day(s)
Education Level:        AFQT: 87
Evaluation Marks:        Performance: 2.3 (3)     Behavior: 1.0 (3)       OTA: 1.76

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

Periods of CONF:

NJP:

- 20051115:      Article (Wrongful use, possession, etc. of controlled substances methamphetamine)
         Awarded: Suspended:

- 20060308:      Article (Absence without leave) 20060131-20060206 7 days
         Article (Missing movement)
         Awarded: Suspended:

SCM:     SPCM:    CC:      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 870518 UNTIL 960816 AND 011016 UNTIL 051013”

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

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 .

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

Applicant’s Issues

1.       The Applicant contends he waived his right to have an administrative board hearing in return for the promise that he would be able to take leave; however, his leave request was denied.
2.       The Applicant contends that if he had been allowed an administrative board hearing he could have proved that his command acted improperly in obtaining his positive urinalysis sample.
3.       The Applicant contends his DD Form 214 is in error because his period of service from October 2001 until October 2005 should have been characterized as Honorable.

Decision

Date: 20141113            Location: Washington D.C.        Representation:

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 governmental 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 standards of equity and propriety. The Applicant’s record of service included NAVPERS 1070/613 (Page 13) warnings, for of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article (Wrongful use, possession, etc. of controlled substances; methamphetamine, ), Article (Absence without leave; 7 days, ), and Article (Missing ship’s movement, ). The Applicant a pre-service drug waiver prior to entering the Navy. Based on the Article 112a violation, processing for administrative separation is mandatory. When notified of administrative separation processing using the procedure, the Applicant rights to consult with a qualified counsel, submit a written statement, and request an administrative board.

: (Decisional) () . The Applicant contends he waived his right to have an administrative board hearing in return for the promise that he would be able to take leave; however, his leave request was denied. The Applicant’s record shows that he tested positive for 642 ng/ml of methamphetamine on 6 October 2005, and on 4 November 2005 admitted in a written statement to have used methamphetamine while on leave in San Diego. The Applicant requested an administrative board that was scheduled for 10 March 2005. However, the Applicant went absent from his command for 7 days from 31 January until 6 February 2006, and on his return, waived his right to and administrative board and accepted his discharge from the Navy with an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge. 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 acted unfairly in the administrative separation process. The Applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity in this case. Relief denied.

: (Decisional) () . The Applicant contends that if he had been allowed an administrative board hearing he could have proved that his command acted improperly in obtaining his positive urinalysis sample. The Applicant tested positive for methamphetamine on a urinalysis test, and admitted in a written statement that he had purchased, and used methamphetamine while on leave in San Diego. The Applicant waived his right to an administrative board on 27 February 2006, and accepted his discharge from the Navy with an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge. In order to separate the Applicant with an administrative discharge, his command only needed to prove by a preponderance of evidence that the Applicant had violated the UCMJ by wrongfully using drugs. The Applicant’s positive urinalysis sample and his own confession to using methamphetamine, proved his drug abuse. The Applicant provided no evidence to the NDRB to support his contention that his urinalysis sample was obtained improperly. The NDRB determined that the Applicant’s administrative separation for drug abuse was proper and equitable. Relief denied.

: (Decisional) () . The Applicant contends his DD Form 214 is in error because his period of service from October 2001 until October 2005 should have been characterized as Honorable. The Applicant’s record shows that he did complete an Honorable period of enlistment for the period of October 2001 until October 2005 when he reenlisted for another four year period. It was during the new enlistment that the Applicant was administratively discharged for drug abuse with an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge. Therefore, the NDRB has recommended to NAVPERSCOM that the Applicant’s DD Form 214 be administratively corrected to reflect his Honorable period of service. Relief granted.

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 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