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

 ex-PCSN, USN
Docket No. ND00-00021

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 991004, 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 designate a representative on the DD Form 293. 

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 000720.  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 1910-146, formerly Article 3630620.

The NDRB did note an administrative error on the original DD Form 214.  Block 24, Character of Service should read:  “UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS” vice “OTHER THAN HONORABLE”.  The original DD Form 214 should be corrected or reissued as appropriate. 

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

1.  Applicant believes other than Honorable Discharge is inappropriate because matter for which discharged was an isolated incident in 46 months of exceptional service.

2.  Applicant feels discharge should be changed also because no training was conducted throughout naval career on issue relevant to discharge.

3.  Applicant firmly believes O.T.H. was issued for the sake of "setting an example" whereas individual records and recommendations were not taken into consideration.  Individual was told "integrity of the discharge must be protected".

Documentation

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

Copy of DD Form 214
13 Questionnaires for applicant character witness for admin board
4 Performance Evaluations

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:    None
	Inactive:  USNR (DEP)	941130 - 950206	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  950207		Date of Discharge:  990129

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    03  11  23
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  4 

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  84

Highest Rate:  PC3

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.5 (4)	Behavior:  3.75 (4)		OTA:  3.65

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NDSM, OSR(2), AFEM(2), GCM, SSDR 

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 1910-146, formerly 3630620.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

[UNABLE TO OBTAIN COMPLETE ADMIN DISCHARGE PACKAGE AND APPLICANT'S MEDICAL RECORD.   THE BOARD PRESUMED REGULARITY IN THE CONDUCT OF GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS.

981204:	NAVDRUGLAB, San Diego, CA, report:  Urinalysis test positive for marijuana.

981209:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 112a:  wrongful use of marijuana on or about 98NOV30.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $568 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to E-3.  No indication of appeal in the record.

990125:	COMPHIBGRU THREE directed the applicant's discharge under Other Than Honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to Drug abuse (Use).

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 990129 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).

In the applicant’s issue 1, the Board determined this issue is without merit.  The applicant claims his discharge was based on one isolated incident in 46 months of exceptional service.  Drug abuse requires mandatory processing for separation.  The applicant’s discharge package is not available.  There is enough documentation to prove that the applicant had committed drug abuse but no evidence of his due process.  The Board assumes regularity in the conduct of government affairs in this case.  Relief denied.

In the applicant’s issue 2, the Board determined this issue is without merit.  The applicant claims he did not receive any training on the issue relevant to his discharge.  There is no documentation to show that the applicant received training on the Navy’s drug and alcohol abuse policy.  However, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of government affairs and will not grant relief based on this issue.

In the applicant’s issue 3, the board determined this issue is without merit.  The applicant claims his OTH discharge was issued for the sake of “setting an example.”  He states his records and recommendations were not taken into consideration.  The Board reviewed all documents in the applicant’s service record prior to rendering a decision on the propriety and equity of the applicant’s discharge.  The Board assumed regularity in the conduct of government affairs.  Relief denied.

The following is provided for the benefit of the applicant.  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 and conduct.  The applicant is encouraged to continue 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.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 18, effective 12 Dec 97 to 19 May 99, Article 1910-146 (formerly 3630620), Separation by Reason of Misconduct - 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