The Griffin Law Firm is proud to announce another successful outcome on behalf of one of our clients — a former Navy Petty Officer who received a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge following a single positive urinalysis test, despite a stellar record of service. The Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) granted full relief, upgrading his discharge to Honorable, changing the narrative reason to Secretarial Authority, and correcting his reentry code to RE-1, restoring his eligibility for reenlistment and full veterans’ benefits.
This case highlights the importance of procedural fairness, equitable review, and the enduring value of clemency in the discharge review process.
Despite his four years of exemplary service, including two deployments and a Good Conduct Medal, his command discharged him without providing him access to critical evidence or legal support. Our client consistently maintained that he never knowingly used marijuana, and explained that he may have been exposed to secondhand smoke by family members while on leave. Nevertheless, his explanation was dismissed without investigation, and he was not afforded meaningful due process.
The Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) ultimately disagreed with the command’s decision. In its ruling, the Board acknowledged the client’s candor, reflection, and consistent commitment to Navy Core Values, and found that his misconduct was isolated and inconsistent with his overall record.
Legal Grounds for Relief: Equity, Clemency, and the Standards of Justice
The NDRB is authorized under 10 U.S.C. § 1553 and DoDI 1332.28 to correct discharges that are “inequitable or improper.” These boards may also grant relief on the basis of clemency — an act of leniency that mitigates the severity of a punishment, even in cases where the underlying conduct occurred.
In this case, the NDRB rejected the notion that due process had been violated outright, but still found that clemency was warranted based on the totality of the circumstances.
“Although the Applicant denies intentional use, his testimony and petition reflect candor and reflection… consistent with the character and performance substantiated throughout his more than four years of service.”
The Board specifically cited:
Isolated nature of the incident
Absence of other misconduct
Positive Proficiency and Conduct marks
Operational deployments
Good Conduct Medal
Sincere introspection in the applicant’s testimony and submissions
Ultimately, the Board found that the severity of the administrative punishment was disproportionate to the offense and inconsistent with the standards of discipline of the Naval Service, as outlined in DoDI 1332.14 and MILPERSMAN 1910-142.
Key Takeaways from the NDRB Decision
“The Board found the Applicant’s service generally meets the standard of acceptable conduct and performance for naval personnel.”
“The Board determined that the unique circumstances of this case warranted relief primarily based on clemency.”
“A change in characterization of service to Honorable is appropriate.”
The decision acknowledges that under Article 112a, UCMJ, marijuana use is a serious offense that typically warrants mandatory separation. However, the Board emphasized that even serious offenses must be considered in light of the service member’s entire record, and that an Honorable discharge does not require flawless service.
What This Means for Other Veterans
This case is a reminder that even if a discharge appears “by the book,” equity, fairness, and justice still matter. If your discharge does not reflect your full service record, or if you were denied resources, legal representation, or an opportunity to explain your circumstances — you may be eligible for relief.
Discharge upgrade cases are governed by legal standards, case law, and regulatory guidance, including:
DoDI 1332.28 (Discharge Review Board Procedures)
The Wilkie Memo (Guidance on Equity, Injustice, and Clemency)
U.S. v. Hirst, 84 M.J. 615 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. 2024) (substance use allegations must be supported by sound evidence)
Dodson v. Dept. of the Army, 988 F.2d 1199 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (military boards must provide a fair review of the entire record)
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (Due Process Standard)
The NDRB applies these standards on a case-by-case basis, which is why a strong legal presentation — with facts, argument, and equity-based framing — can make all the difference.
We Fight for Fairness
At Griffin Law, we know that one mistake shouldn’t define a lifetime of service. If you believe your military discharge was unjust, inequitable, or procedurally flawed, we can help. Our attorneys represent service members and veterans across all branches in seeking discharge upgrades, record corrections, and appeals before the NDRB, BCNR, BCMR, and beyond.
📞 Call us today for a free consultation at 888-707-4282
🌐 griffinlawdefense.com