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

   

 ex-GSEFN, USN
Docket No. ND99-01023

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 990727, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to Honorable or General/under honorable conditions.  The applicant requested a personal appearance hearing before a Traveling Panel to Nashville, TN.  The applicant listed the American Legion as his representative on the DD Form 293.  In the acknowledgement letter to the applicant, he was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary record review prior to any personal appearance hearing.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 000616.  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.  Nature of separation to harsh for offenses or offense committed.

2.  (Equity issue) This former member further request that the Board include provision of SECNAVINST 5420.174C., enclosure (1), Chapter 9, as it pertains to post-service conduct, in assessing the merits of his application.   

Documentation

NO DISCHARGE PACKAGE available.  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:   USN			890918 - 930826	HON
	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	881209 - 890917	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  930827		Date of Discharge:  940208

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    00  05  13
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  22			Years Contracted:  4 

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  67

Highest Rate:  GSE3

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.20 (2)	Behavior:  3.30 (2)		OTA:  3.20

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NDSM, SSDR, SASM(2ND), NAVY"E"RIBBON 

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:

930827:	Reenlisted onboard USS BRISCOE (DD-977) for 4 years.

931206:	DAAR indicates applicant marijuana abuse, found not dependent, as a result of a random urinalysis.  

931202:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 112A: Wrongfully use a controlled substance, to wit: marijuana.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $541.00 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to E-3.  No indication of appeal in the record.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 940208 under Other Than Honorable conditions for misconduct due to Drug abuse (Use) (A).  The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (B).  The applicant’s discharge package was not available.  After a thorough review of the available records, supporting documents and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (C and D).

In the applicant’s issue 1, the Board determined this issue is without merit.  The applicant claims the nature of separation was too harsh for the offense committed.  The Navy had, and still has, a zero tolerance for drugs policy.  Drug abuse (Use) requires mandatory processing of drug abusers, for administrative separation.  The discharge was proper and equitable.  Relief denied.

In the applicant’s issue 2, the Board determined this issue is without merit.  The applicant request that the Board consider post-service conduct, in assessing the merits of his application.  The applicant failed to submit any documentation to support his request for post-service clemency. Additionally, there is no law or regulation that provides for the upgrade of an unfavorable discharge based solely on the passage of time or good conduct, subsequent to leaving military service.  The NDRB reviews the propriety (did the Navy follow its own rules in processing the applicant for discharge) and equity (did the applicant receive a discharge characterization in keeping with Navy guidance or was the characterization typical of other service members being separated for the same reason) of each applicant’s discharge to determine if proper procedures were followed.  This applicant’s discharge was proper and equitable.  Additionally, the NDRB is authorized to award clemency for post-service factors (what has the applicant done since discharge to become a contributing member of his/her community and to society in general).  Those factors include but are not limited to the following:  Evidence of continuing educational pursuits (transcripts, diploma, degree or vocational-technical certificates), a verifiable employment history (letter of recommendation from employer), documentation of community service (letter from activity/community group), certificate of non-involvement with civil authorities (police records check) and proof of not using drugs (detoxification certificate).  The applicant did not provide any documentation to demonstrate good character or conduct, which would warrant an upgrade to his discharge.  The applicant is encouraged to establish a reputation of good character and document his accomplishments.  Documentation to support any claim of good character is a must to receive any consideration based on post-service achievements.  The applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, to discuss his post-service accomplishments, provided an application is received by the NDRB within fifteen years from the date of his discharge.  Legal representation at the hearing is advisable.  Relief denied.
Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Navy Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 5/93, effective 
05 Mar 93 until 21 Jul 94, 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 view DoD Directive 1332.28 and other Decisional Documents by going online at "afls14.jag.af.mil".

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
		720 Kennon Street SE Rm 309
		Washington Navy Yard DC  20374-5023