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

ex-SR, USN
Docket No. ND00-00151 

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 991109, 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 000727.  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).

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

1.  In addition to all information available I had became involved with drugs while serving in the USN which was a result of me committing such an act that got me an other than honorable discharge.  As of today I still use drugs.  This upgrade is one of the many steps to better my life.  I wish to be eligable for the VA detox drug program and in order for this to occur my discharge need to be upgraded.  My substance abuse started while I was serving in the USN and that is why my discharge should be upgraded. 

Documentation

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

None

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   USAF 		920721 - 920728	Drugs
	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	970117 - 970409	ELS
   USNR (DEP)	980107 - 980125	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  980126		Date of Discharge:  980824

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    00  06  29
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  23			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  11			AFQT:  63

Highest Rate:  SR

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  NMF			Behavior:  NMF		OTA:  NMF

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  None 

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:

980623:	Applicant to unauthorized absence 0700, 23Jun98.

980625:	Applicant from unauthorized absence 0621, 25Jun98 (1 day/surrendered).
980720:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (2 specs): Absence without leave, violation of UCMJ, Article 121: Larceny, to wit: steal retail merchandise of a value in excess of $184, the property of the Navy Exchange on 15 July 1998.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $463.05 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days.  No indication of appeal in the record.

980720:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under Other Than Honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the Commission of a serious offense.

980720:  	Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ, Article 27B, elected to waive all rights.

980720:	Commanding officer recommended discharge under Other Than Honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the Commission of a serious offense.

980803:	Commander, Naval Surface Force, U.S. Atlantic Fleet 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 980824 under Other Than Honorable conditions for misconduct due to Commission of a serious offense (A and B).  The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (C).  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 (D and E).

In the applicant’s issue 1, the Board determined this issue is without merit.  The applicant states his substance abuse started while in the Navy and this is why his discharge should be upgraded.  The applicant was not discharged for drug abuse.  The only documentation provided, that shows he used illegal drugs, is during his military service in the Air Force.  He was discharged for Commission of a serious offense (Larceny).  The applicant was not identified as a drug abuser, while serving in the Navy, therefore, the Navy is not responsible for providing rehabilitation treatment.  The applicant should contact a civilian rehabilitation center for treatment of his existing problem.  Relief denied.

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.  In Appendix 12 of the Manual for Courts-Martial, a punitive discharge is authorized for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 121, Larceny of property valued over $100, if adjudged at a Special or General Court Martial

C.  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.  

D.  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.

E.  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