ex-QMSA, 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)       20080619 - 20081002     Active: 

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Current Enlistment: 20081003     Age at Enlistment:
Period of Enlistment: Years 14 MONTHS Extension
Date of Discharge: 20120309      Highest Rank/Rate: QMSN
Length of Service: Year(s) Month(s) 07 Day(s)
Education Level:         AFQT: 51
Evaluation Marks:        Performance: 3.4 (5)     Behavior: 2.2 (5)        OTA: 2.82

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):    

Period of CONF:

NJP:

- 20090716:      Article 111 (Drunken or reckless operation of a vehicle)
         Awarded: Suspended:

- 20110727:      Article 86 (Absence without leave)
         Awarded: Suspended:

- 20120301:      Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation) 4 specifications
         Specification 1: Wrongfully possessing “Spice” a controlled substance analogue on or about 20130223
         Specification 2: Unlawfully using “Spice” a controlled substance analogue on divers occasion from on or about 201103 to 201104
        Specification 3: Unlawfully using “Spice” a controlled substance analogue on divers occasions from on or about 201106 to 201202
         Specification 4: Wrongfully using “Coricidin” an over the counter drug with the intent to induce excitement or stupefaction of the nervous system on divers occasion on or about 201106 to 201202
         Awarded: Suspended:

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

Types of Witnesses Who Testified

         Expert:           Character:      

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 IV, Para 403m(7)(a), Presumption Concerning Court-Martial Specifications.

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 92.

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

Applicant’s Issues

1.       The Applicant contends his discharge should be upgraded because he was not afforded due process during his separation.
2.       The Applicant contends his discharge was unjust because he was incorrectly notified concerning the basis of his administrative separation resulting in him waiving his Administrative Separation Board.

Decision

Date: 20150805            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 for of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 86 (Absence without leave), Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation, 4 specifications), and Article 111 (Drunken or reckless operation of a vehicle). Based on the offense(s) committed by the Applicant, command administratively processed for separation. Based on the Applicant’s violation of the zero tolerance drug policy, processing for administrative separation is mandatory. When notified of administrative separation processing using the procedure, the Applicant waived rights to consult with a qualified counsel, submit a written statement, and request an administrative board.

: (Decisional) () . The Applicant contends his discharge should be upgraded because he was not afforded due process during his separation. During the separation proceedings, the Applicant waived his right to consult with counsel, request a hearing before an Administrative Separation Board, and submit a rebuttal to the separation. If the Applicant believed there were mitigating circumstances, it was his obligation to contest those charges at the time they were made. During an Administrative Separation Board, he would have had the opportunity to mount a defense against the charges. The Applicant submitted no evidence to support his contention other than his attempt to contest the separation after the separation authority released the message directing his separation which he waived his rights; therefore, the NDRB relied upon the presumption of regularity in the conduct of government affairs. Relief denied.

: (Decisional) () . The Applicant contends his discharge was unjust because he was incorrectly notified concerning the basis of his administrative separation resulting in him waiving his Administrative Separation Board. The record clearly shows that the Applicant violated the zero tolerance drug policy by unlawfully using Spice on numerous occasions and wrongfully using “Coricidin” on numerous occasions. Smoking or possessing Spice with the intention of getting high and wrongfully using “Coricidin” an over the counter drug with the intent to induce excitement or stupefaction of the nervous system are violations of SECNAVINST 5300.28D (Military Substance Abuse Prevention and Control) and is punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice for violation of Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation) and requires, at a minimum, mandatory processing for an administrative separation. The commanding officer’s recommendation for separation dated 7 March 2012 includes the applicable enclosures and clearly states the Applicant’s numerous violations of the UCMJ. The Applicant was properly notified of administrative separation using the administrative board procedure in which the least favorable characterization of service is Under Other Than Honorable Conditions. If the Applicant did not understand the reason for his administrative processing for separation or if he felt that he was erroneously charged, it was his obligation to contest this at the time of occurrence. The NDRB found the Applicant’s issues to be without merit. Furthermore, the Applicant’s violation of the zero tolerance drug policy 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. However, his command did not pursue a punitive discharge but opted instead for the more lenient administrative discharge. The NDRB found the characterization of the Applicant’s discharge was equitable and consistent with the characterization of discharge given others in similar circumstances. Relief 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 (SERIOUS OFFENSE). 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 , or http://www.secnav.navy.mil/mra/bcnr/Pages/default.aspx 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: Effective 6 February 2015, the NDRB is authorized to change a NDRB Applicant’s Reenlistment Code if related to an accompanying change in discharge characterization or narrative, but this authority is strictly limited to those cases where an applicant’s narrative reason or characterization of discharge is changed and that change warrants revision of the previously issued reenlistment code. 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