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

 

ex-SN, USN
Docket No. ND00-00154

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 991112, 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 – Drug abuse (Use), authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630620.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues (verbatim)

1.  I was discharged after 9 1/2 years of active service for positive urinalysis.  No drug programs offered at that time.  Please evaluate and give consideration to prior services and evaluations. Please upgrade to honorable conditions.

Above incident took place in a short period of time (6 mt period or less).  While I was going through a divorce.  I was going through a state of depression do to the marital separation.  Other than this period I have not had "any" disciplinary issues.  All service time was served with integrity and honor.

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:   USN			770819 - 810817	HON
	Inactive: None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  810818		Date of Discharge:  861103

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    05  02  16
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  24			Years Contracted:  4 (17 months extension)

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  48/45

Highest Rate:  HM2

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.80 (5)	Behavior:  3.32 (5)		OTA:  3.76

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  GCM, SSDR

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Misconduct – Drug abuse (Use), authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630620.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

850620:	NAVDRUGLAB Norfolk, VA reports urine sample received 850610 tested positive for cocaine.

850725:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 112A:  Wrongful use of controlled substance.
	Award: Extra duty for 30 days, reduction to HM3.  Appealed 850918.  Appeal denied 850805.

860324:	Substance Abuse Report: Cocaine abuse ashore off duty.  Applicant found not dependent and recommended for Level I treatment.  Inspection urinalysis 7Jun85.  Commanding officer recommended retention.  Comments: PO3 (applicant) is a steady, reliable worker and completes assignments in a timely manner without supervision.  He went to NJP on 25 July 85 and was awarded reduction to next pay grade, and 30 days extra duties.

860328:	NAVDRUGLAB Norfolk, VA reports urine sample tested positive for PCP.

860424:	Letter of Substandard performance issued to applicant from CNP.

860527:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 112A: Wrongful use of phencyclidine (PCP) on 17Mar86.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $200 per month for 2 months, extra duty for 30 days, reduction to HN.  No indication of appeal in the record.

860711:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse as evidenced by positive urinalysis screens conducted on 7 June 1985 and 17 March 1986.

860715:  	Applicant advised of his rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge Board.

860728:	Medical evaluation for drug abuse found the applicant to be a drug abuser, not drug dependent.  Recommend Level I (NADSAP) treatment.   

860804:	An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence and by unanimous vote, found that the applicant had committed misconduct due to drug abuse, that the misconduct warranted separation, and recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions.

860909:	Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse. 

861029:	CNMPC 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 861103 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 response to the applicant’s issue 1, the Board found consideration was given to the applicant’s “prior services and evaluations.”  The applicant had average performance marks, 2 NJPs (both of which were wrongful use of a controlled substance) and a chance to present his entire service record to an Administrative Discharge Board.  The 3 member Board and the Commanding Officer both recommended that the member be separated from the service with an other than honorable discharge characterization.  A discharge for misconduct due to drug abuse is normally under other than honorable conditions.  Taking into consideration the fact that the applicant had 2 separate drug charges, the Board finds the discharge proper and equitable.

The applicant states in issue 2 that he was “going through a divorce” and “going through a state of depression.”  This is unfortunate, but the applicant willfully disregarded the Navy’s policy on drugs and should be held accountable for his actions.  No relief will be granted based on this issue.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Navy Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560), Change 10/85, effective 
16 Dec 85 until 05 Oct 86, 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