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

 ex-SA, USN
Docket No. ND99-00954

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 990709, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions and the reason for the discharge be changed to misconduct.  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 000331.  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 1910 - 142 (formerly 3630605).

The NDRB did note an administrative error on the original DD Form 214.  Block 25, Separation Authority should read:  “NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-142” vice “MILPERSMAN 3630605”.  The original DD Form 214 should be corrected or reissued as appropriate. 

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

1.  My undesirable discharge was inequitable because I came forth with the problem to seek help with the military and to try to stay in the military.

2.  My undesirable discharge was also inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident in 21months of service with no other adverse action.

3.  My undesirable discharge is going to effect me from joining the military again, and future goals later on down the line, to be a police officer.

Documentation

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

Copy of DD Form 214

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   None
	Inactive: USNR (DEP)		960821 - 960826	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  960827 			Date of Discharge:  980602

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    01  09  06
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  39

Highest Rate:  SN

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  NMF			Behavior:  NMF		OTA:  NMF

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  BER 

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 1910-142 (formerly 3630605).

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

980508:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 112A (2 specs): (1) Wrongfully use marijuana, (2) Wrongfully possess a certain amount of marijuana.
	Award:  Restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to SA.  No indication of appeal in the record.

980511:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

980511:  	Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights.

980513:	Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.  [Date extracted from Commander, Western Hemisphere Group letter dated 18 May 1998.]

980518:	Commander, Western Hemisphere Group directed the applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 980602 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (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).

1.  The applicant’s first issue states “My undesirable discharge was inequitable because I came forth with the problem to seek help with the military and to try to stay in the military.”
The NDRB found no evidence in the applicant’s service record to support this issue.  The applicant was found guilty at NJP for wrongful use of a controlled substance as well as possession of a controlled substance.  Relief is not warranted.

2.  The applicant’s second issue states “My undesirable discharge was also inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident in 21months of service with no other adverse action.”  The NDRB found this issue without merit.  The applicant’s misconduct warranted an other than honorable discharge and was proper and equitable.

3.  The applicant’s third issue states “My undesirable discharge is going to effect me from joining the military again, and future goals later on down the line, to be a police officer.”  The NDRB found this issue non decisional.  Relief not warranted.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 18, effective 
12 Dec 97 until Present, Article 1910-142  [formerly 3630605]. SEPARATION BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT- COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE.

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, D.C.  20374-5023