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

ex-FA, USN
Docket No. ND99-00927

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 990629, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable.  The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review.  The applicant did not list any representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 000317.  After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, NDRB discerned no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the applicant’s service.  The Board’s vote was unanimous that the character of the discharge shall not change.  The discharge shall remain: UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630620.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

1. When I first joined the Navy I knew that there was zero tolerance for drug abuse.  They made it very clear at boot camp.  When I arrived at my first command I was the new guy on board.  I didn't know anyone or the first thing about shipboard life.  I was desperate to make friends and the first people to accept me into their group were smoking marijuana occasionally.  I knew it was wrong and it was the first time I ever tried it.  I was very nervous at first about the zero tolerance rule, but after I passed the first few urinalysis test I didn't worry about it too much, I knew what I was doing was wrong and didn't expect the Navy to act any differently, I deserved what I received.  It has been a little over four years that I was discharged other than honorably and I am asking for an honorable discharge under convenience to the military.  When I first got home I registered myself back into college to finish my associates in science degree in Computer Aided Drafting and Design.  I received my degree in May of 1997 and began working as a tool designer for a small company in Waterbury CT.  After about a year and a half there I was offered a job at Pratt & Whitney, a commercial and military jet engine design and manufacturing company as a design drafter.  I have been working there over a year know and am going to Central Connecticut State University for my bachelors in mechanical engineering technology.  I am not proud to have a scarred back round and would like to erase that from my life.  All I ask is that you can see a mature individual that is trying to clear his mistakes and make as much of himself as possible.  Thank You

Documentation

In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:

Copy of DD Form 214
College course from Central Connecticut State University
Copy of Degree Associate in Science dated May 1997

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):

	Active:   None
	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	930318 - 930621	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  930622		Date of Discharge:  941019

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    01  03  28
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  19			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  66

Highest Rate:  FN

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.80 (1)	Behavior:  3.80 (1)		OTA:  3.80

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NDSM 

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance):

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630620.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

940721:	NAVDRUGLAB reports urine sample received 13Jul94 tested positive for THC.

940805:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 112A: Wrongful use of marijuana.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $466 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to FA.  No indication of appeal in the record.

940816:	Medical evaluation for drug abuse found the applicant to be a drug user.   

940901:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.

940901:  	Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights except the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation.

940902:	Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense and misconduct due to drug abuse (use).  Commanding officer’s comments (verbatim): FA (applicant) was transferred to this command to await final action on the USS CROMMELIN's request for separation as submitted by reference (b).  As indicated by enclosure (2), FA (applicant) was given incorrect rights with regard to his processing.  By reference (c) he was made TEMDU to this command for reprocessing.  On 1 September 1994 FA (applicant) signed a new Notice of Processing and Statement of Awareness (enclosure (3) and (4) and waived his rights to an Administrative Board.  Further retention on active duty is not in the best interest of the member or the Navy.  Therefore, it is recommended that FA (applicant) be separated with an Other Than Honorable discharge by reason of misconduct.

931017:	BUPERS directed the applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse (use).  [Date extracted from Block 25 of DD Form 214.]

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 941019 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to drug abuse (use) (A).  The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (B).  After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (C and D).

The Board found that the applicant’s age, education level, and test scores qualified him for enlistment.  While he may feel his immaturity was a factor that contributed to his action, the record clearly reflects his willful disregard for the requirements of military discipline and demonstrated that he was unfit for further service.  The record is devoid of evidence that the applicant was not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions.  Relief not warranted.

The following is provided for the applicant’s edification.  The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge.  The applicant must be aware that there is no law or regulation which provides that an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time, or good conduct in the civilian life subsequent to leaving the service.  Normally, to permit relief, an error or injustice must have been found to have existed during the period of enlistment in question.  Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent that such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review, may be considered by the NDRB.  The applicant is reminded that he is eligible for a personal appearance hearing provided the application is received within 15 years from the date of discharge.  Representation at personal appearance hearing is highly recommended.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Navy Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 9/94, effective 
22 Jul 94 until 02 Oct 96, Article 3630620, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED MEMBERS BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT DUE TO DRUG ABUSE

B.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 2, AUTHORITY/POLICY FOR DEPARTMENTAL DISCHARGE REVIEW.  

C.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 9, paragraph 9.2, PROPRIETY OF THE DISCHARGE.

D.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 9, paragraph 9.3, EQUITY OF THE DISCHARGE.

PART IV - INFORMATION FOR THE APPLICANT

If you believe that 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 Directive 1332.28, you may submit a complaint in accordance with Enclosure (5) of that Directive.  You should read Enclosure (5) of the Directive 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 obtain a copy of DoD Directive 1332.28 by writing to:

		DA Military Review Boards Agency
		Management Information and Support Directorate
		Armed Forces Reading Room
		Washington, D.C.  20310-1809

The names, and votes of the members of the Board are recorded on the original of this document and may be obtained from the service records by writing to:

		Naval Council of Personnel Boards
		Attn:  Naval Discharge Review Board
		Washington Navy Yard
		720 Kennon Street SE Rm 309
		Washington, DC  20374-5023