, ex- AME2, 

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20200702
Characterization of Service Received:   
Narrative Reason for Discharge:   MISCONDUCT (DRUG ABUSE)
Authority for Discharge:   MILPERSMAN 1910-146 [DRUG ABUSE] 

Applicant’s Request:	Characterization change to:	
Narrative Reason change to: REQUESTED BUT NOT SPECIFIED
Reentry Code change to: REQUESTED, BUT NOT SPECIFIED

Summary of Service

Prior Creditable Service:
Inactive:			Active:	 

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment:  20081209	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Extension
Date of Discharge:  20150918	Highest Rank/Rate:  AME2
Length of Service:    Year(s)    Month(s)  10  Day(s)
Education Level:  16	AFQT:  67
Deployment/Operation: INHERENT RESOLVE, MARTILLO, NEW DAWN, ENDURING FREEDOM

Evaluation Marks (# of occasions):  Performance/Proficiency: 4.3 (6)   Behavior/Conduct: 4.0 (6)   OTA: 4.11 

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	NMCAM (2) NAVY "E" GCM NDSM GWOTEM GWOTSM SSDR (3) LoC (2)
 
Periods of UA:  NONE
Periods of CONF:  NONE
Other Time Lost per DD214:  NONE

NJP:   SCM:   SPCM:   CIVIL ARREST:   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:

	 Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, should include:  “LETTER OF COMMENDATION (2)”
	  “UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS”
	  “MILPERSMAN 1910-146”

The NDRB will recommend to Commander, Navy Personnel Command or Commandant of the Marine Corps that the DD 214 be corrected as appropriate.

Types of Documents Submitted/reviewed

	DD 214:		Service/Medical Record:		Other Records:	
	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:    

	Witness E-1:			Witness C-1:	
	Witness E-2:			Witness C-2:

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A.  The Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16F), effective 26 November 2013 until present, Paragraph 6210.5, MISCONDUCT.

B.  Secretary of the Navy Manual 5420.1 of 29 September 2020 (Standards for the execution of the Naval Discharge Review Board).

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

Applicant’s Issues

1.	The Applicant contends his discharge is improper and inequitable because he never engaged in any misconduct.
2.	The Applicant contends his in-service conduct and achievement warrants consideration for an upgrade.  
3.	The Applicant contends his discharge is improper because of procedural errors that were made during his Administrative Separation Board and during his separation from service.

Discussion

Date:  20210331		Location:  WASHINGTON D.C.	Representation:  

The Naval Discharge Review Board (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 completed a thorough review of the circumstances that led to the discharge and the discharge process to ensure the pertinent standards of equity and propriety were met.

The Applicant’s record of service included no retention warning counseling and no misconduct resulting in nonjudicial punishment or court-martial.

Issues 1-2:  The Applicant contends his discharge is improper and inequitable because he never engaged in any misconduct.  And, the Applicant contend his in-service conduct and achievement warrants consideration for an upgrade.

In support of this issue, the Applicant described the circumstances that led to the basis for his separation from service and outside of this alleged misconduct, he implied that his service was meritorious.  While in Bahrain in 2014, the Applicant attended a unit function.  The Applicant indicated shuttles were provided to and from the function.  While at the function, his backpack went missing and he reported this to the Command Duty Officer on his return from the function.  The next morning, a Senior Chief had several similar backpacks that were found at the function.  The Applicant described his backpack to the Senior Chief and he was told him that his backpack was turned over to security and he was the subject of a command investigation.  On the following day, the Applicant met with Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) and he turned over his cell phone and laptop.  In 2015, the Applicant underwent Administrative Separation (ADSEP) processing and he stated that he was unable to tell his story to the ADSEP Board.  Today, the Applicant stated that he was never involved in any wrongdoing, but he acknowledged there was a Steroid problem within his command and he was wrongly accused of having Steroids in his backpack.  Along with his petition, the Applicant provided one character statement, a Freedom of Information Act request, and in-service records which included excerpts of his ADSEP Board, excerpts of the NCIS investigation, and documentation relating to his own Seaman to Admiral Program nomination.

In review of the evidence of record, the NDRB found the Applicant served for a period six years and ten months.  During this period, the Applicant received above average evaluations, completed three sea-service deployments, and was awarded two Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medals and one Good Conduct Medal.  The Applicant also received one adverse evaluation that cited his separation by reason of Drug Abuse.  Based on the documentation provided by the Applicant, an NCIS investigation was initiated which concerned an allegation(s) of the Applicant’s possession of a controlled substance.  Information pertaining to this investigation was turned over to his command.  Upon review of the investigation, the Applicant’s command elected to not pursue punitive action, but opted for a lenient separation from service.  Although the NDRB could not find a full record of the ADSEP Board or the NCIS investigation, the NDRB deduced the Applicant was notified of ADSEP processing under the basis of Drug Abuse and the least favorable characterization of service that he may receive would be Under Other than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC).  Upon receiving this notification, the Applicant exercised his right to an ADSEP Board and he was assigned legal counsel.  Based on the circumstances of the assigned discharge, the NDRB reasoned an unbiased ADSEP Board considered all evidence which included the Applicant’s full record of service and determined that the preponderance of evidence supported the basis for separation.  The NDRB also reasoned this ADSEP Board recommended separation with a UOTHC characterization and ultimately the Separation Authority concurred with the Board and directed a UOTHC.

The NDRB reviews the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge individually, on a case-by-case basis.  If such a review reveals an impropriety or inequity, relief is in order.  Regulations permit relief on equitable grounds if the Applicant’s discharge is inconsistent with standards of discipline of the Naval Service.  

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 and the circumstances of his misconduct, the NDRB determined he 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 is warranted.  

Furthermore, the NDRB found that the Applicant provided insufficient evidence to support his innocence and refute the determination made by the ADSEP Board.  Additionally, if the Applicant felt as if he was mistakenly accused of an offense, it was his obligation to contest those charges at the time they were made or during the conduct of his NCIS investigation.  And, while under the advisement of legal counsel at his ADSEP Board, the Applicant had a full opportunity to mount a defense for the charge(s), yet an unbiased Board determined that the basis for his separation was supported.  Absent of this determination, the Applicant is encouraged to appeal to the NDRB for a Personal Appearance Hearing and further discuss the circumstances of his misconduct and the conduct of his ADSEP Board.  Relief denied.

Issue 3:  The Applicant contends his discharge is improper because of procedural errors that were made during his Administrative Separation Board and during his separation from service.

In support of this issue, the Applicant stated the members of the ADSEP Board were confused as to what NCIS evidence was related to his case and he provided an NCIS document with handwritten names linking evidence to individuals that were accused of possessing or using Steroids.  The Applicant additionally acknowledged that the ADSEP Board recommended separation with a UOTHC characterization, however, his legal counsel appealed this Board’s decision over the course of six months.  At a later date, the Applicant received separation travel orders that cited an Honorable characterization of service and inexplicably, this Honorable characterization was changed to a UOTHC.  The Applicant provided evidence of the separation travel orders in question.

In review of the evidence of record and the documentation provided by the Applicant, the NDRB was unable to discern the context of the NCIS documentation and how that related to a confused ADSEP Board.  Furthermore, the NDRB found there was insufficient evidence to suggest the ADSEP Board was misunderstood in its determination or if the Board was not fair or impartial.  With regards to the Applicant’s assertion that he was due an Honorable characterization of service based on his appeal and the separation orders, the NDRB found this issue to be without merit.  Although the NDRB did not have a full record of post-Board proceedings, the NDRB presumed his assigned counsel provided a Letter of Deficiency (LoD) to the Separation Authority for consideration.  This LoD was also not within the record or the documentation provided by the Applicant, yet the NDRB reasoned this LoD was considered by the Separation Authority and the Separation Authority directed a UOTHC characterization.  The separation travel orders that highlighted an Honorable characterization was merely an administrative error and it did not correctly reflect the Separation Authority’s determination in the narrative and characterization of service.  Relief denied.

Decision

After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s issues, summary of service,  record entries, and discharge process, the Board found .  Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall  UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS, the narrative reason for separation shall  MISCONDUCT (DRUG ABUSE) with a corresponding separation code of GKK, and the reentry code shall  RE-4.  The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing for a period of fifteen years from the date of the 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/.  More information is available at http://www.secnav.navy.mil/mra/CORB/pages/ndrb/default.aspx.

Additional Reviews: After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance or telephonic 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: 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-Traumatic Stress Disorder and/or Traumatic Brain Injury: For all claims involving PTSD and/or TBI, the NDRB’s review implemented the guidance set forth in the SECDEF Memorandum of 3 September 2014 (Supplemental guidance to Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Discharge Upgrade Requests by Veterans Claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder).  In accordance with U.S. Code, Title X, Section 1553 (d)(1) & d(2), the NDRB included a member who is a physician, clinical psychologist, or psychiatrist and accorded the case sufficient priority to achieve an expedited resolution and a final decision.

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.

Military Sexual Trauma: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) uses the term "military sexual trauma" (MST) to refer to experiences of sexual assault or repeated, threatening sexual harassment experienced while on federal active duty, active duty for training, or inactive duty training.  To get confidential one-on-one help please contact the MST Coordinator at your nearest VA Medical Center or Call Safe Helpline at 1-877-995-5247 or visit www.mentalhealth.va.gov/msthome.asp.

Reporting Military Sexual Trauma: To report a military sexual trauma, you can make an anonymous report to the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) by Text or Online.  The NCIS Tip Line provides service members, veterans and civilians a safe, discreet and ANONYMOUS option to report criminal and force protection threats within the USN and USMC without concerns of retaliation.  To report a crime by Text: Text  274637 (CRIMES); Type “NCIS” at the top of the message; and include as much detail as possible to ensure your tip can effectively be investigated.  To send your ANONYMOUS Tip via the online, go to https://www.tipsubmit.com/webtipsNAV.aspx?AgencyID=840.

Suicide Prevention: Veterans in emotional crisis or their loved ones can call the free and confidential Veterans Crisis Line at 1-800-273-8255 (then press 1); or chat online at http://www.veteranscrisisline.net, or send a text message to 838255 to connect with a caring, qualified Veteran Affairs Responder who can deal with any immediate crisis.