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

ex-EMFN, USN
Docket No. ND00-00207

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 991129, 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 000803.  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: GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-146, formerly Article 3630620.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues (verbatim)

1. SIRS:  THE FOLLOWING ISSUES ARE REASONS I BELIEVE MY DISCHARGE SHOULD BE UPGRADED TO HONORABLE.  IF YOU DISAGREE, PLEASE EXPLAIN IN DETAIL WHY YOU DISAGREE.  THE PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY THAT MIGHT NORMALLY PERMIT YOU TO ASSUME THAT THE SERVICE ACTED CORRECTLY IN CHARACTERIZING MY SERVICE AS LESS THAN HONORABLE DOES NOT APPLY TO MY CASE BECAUSE OF THE EVIDENCE I AM SUBMITTING.

MY AVERAGE CONDUCT AND EFFICIENCY RATINGS/BEHAVIOR AND PROFICIENCY MARKS WERE GOOD.  I RECEIVED ABOVE AVERAGE RATINGS ON ALL MY EFFICIENCY RATINGS FOR MY WHOLE TOUR OF DUTY IN THE NAVY 48 MONTHS.

I RECEIVED AWARDS AND DECORATIONS AND LETTERS OF RECOMMENDATION WHILE IN THE NAVY.  A FEW OF WHICH I HAVE ATTACHED WITH THIS REQUEST FOR REVIEW AS EXHIBIT (A).

MY RECORD OF PROMOTIONS SHOW I WAS A GOOD SERVICE MEMBER.  ATTACHED TO THIS REVIEW AS EXHIBIT (B).

THERE WERE OTHER ACTS OF MERIT, ONE OF WHICH WAS SENT AS A NEWS LETTER TO MY HOME TOWN NEWS PAPER.  THIS IS ATTACHED AS EXHIBIT (C).

I WAS SO CLOSE TO FINISHING MY TOUR THAT IT WAS UNFAIR TO GIVE ME A BAD DISCHARGE.  I JUST LIKED (10) TEN DAYS FINISHING MY TOUR OF DUTY WITH THE NAVY.  I WAS REQUIRED TO GIVE A URINE SAMPLE (3) THREE TIMES BEFORE THEY GOT A BAD UA ON ME.  I REALIZE I HAVE MADE A MISTAKE BY GETTING INVOLVED WITH A FEW PEOPLE I THOUGHT WERE FRIENDS AND FROM THEIR PEER PRESSURE I GOT INVOLVED IN DRINKING AND DOING DRUGS ONLY ON ONE OCCASION AND IT CAUGHT UP WITH ME.  THIS ONE MISTAKE IN MY LIFE SHOULD NOT HAVE AN INFLUENCE IN THE REST OF MY LIFE.    I AM SORRY FOR WHAT I HAVE DONE AND THE SHAME I'VE BROUGHT TO ME AND MY FAMILY.  THIS TYPE OF BEHAVIOR HAS NOT HAPPENED SINCE NOR WILL IT EVER IN MY LIFE.

CLEMENCY IS WARRANTED BECAUSE IT IS AN INJUSTICE FOR ME TO CONTINUE TO SUFFER THE ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES OF A BAD DISCHARGE.  I HAVE ALREADY BEEN REJECTED FOR EMPLOYMENT FROM ONE JOB FOR THE WORDING ON MY DD-214 LINE 28 WHICH STATES MISCONDUCT DUE TO DRUG ABUSE.  EVEN THOUGH I WAS NOT CONVICTED OF ANY TYPE OF DRUG OFFENSE IN THE MILITARY OR CIVILIAN LIFE I AM BRANDED WITH THIS STATEMENT THAT ONLY MY IMMEDIATE SUPERVISOR IN THE NAVY CHOSE TO DO, INSTEAD OF SENDING ME TO ALCOHOL AND DRUG ABUSE COUNSELING DUE TO THE ONLY FACT I HAD 10 TEN DAYS LEFT IN THE SERVICE, THIS WAS VERY UNFAIR AS I KNOW OTHERS THAT STAYED IN THE SERVICE AFTER GETTING A BAD UA TEST FOR DRUGS AND THEY WERE ALLOWED TO ATTEND COUNSELING HOWEVER THEY HAD TIME LEFT IN THE SERVICE SO THEY COULD COMPLETE THEIR COUNSELING.  DUE TO THE FACT I DID NOT HAVE THE TIME LEFT IN THE SERVICE I WAS GIVEN THIS DISCHARGE.  EVEN THOUGH I COMPLETED MY TOUR OF DUTY WITH THE NAVY.  I HAD NO COURSE OF ACTION TO DISPUTE THIS OUTCOME.  THE PUNISHMENT DOES NOT FIT THE OFFENSE.  SEE EXHIBIT (D).  LINE 24 AND 28 OF MY DD-214.

I HAVE BEEN A GOOD CITIZEN SINCE MY DISCHARGE, AND BEFORE I ENTERED THE SERVICE I WAS A GOOD CITIZEN.  AFTER THE SERVICE I HAVE TRIED TO LIVE MY LIFE FOR GOD AND AM DEVOTED TO MY FAMILY.  I AM NOW ATTENDING COLLEGE TO BECOME A AVIATION MECHANIC, MAKING IN THE 90'S WITH MY GRADES.  PLEASE LOOK AT EXHIBIT (E).  WHICH ARE SEVERAL STATEMENTS OF SUPPORT FROM THE COMMUNITY I LIVE IN AND GREW UP IN.

THE PUNISHMENT I GOT AT DISCHARGE WAS TOO HARSH, IT WAS MUCH WORSE THAN MOST PEOPLE GOT FOR THE SAME OFFENSE.  IF IT WERE NOT FOR THE FACT I ONLY HAD A FEW DAYS LEFT ON MY TOUR OF DUTY FOR THE UNITED STATES NAVY I FEEL I WOULD HAVE BEEN TREATED DIFFERENTLY AND BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE UP FOR THE MISTAKE I LET MYSELF GET INVOLVED IN.  SIRS I REALIZE I MADE A MISTAKE AT THAT TIME IN MY LIFE, AND I WISH EVERY DAY THAT I COULD TAKE IT BACK BUT I CAN T. I HOPE YOU CAN SEE THAT THIS WAS ONLY ONE MISTAKE I MADE IN THE SERVICE, IT WAS NOT THE WAY I CONDUCTED MYSELF FOR THE (4) FOUR YEARS OF MY SERVICE, AS I HOPE YOU CAN SEE FROM MY SERVICE RECORDS AND THE INFORMATION I HAVE PROVIDED YOU.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR TIME TO REVIEW MY MILITARY UPGRADE REQUEST.

Documentation

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

Letter from applicant's parents dated March 3, 2000
Copy of college transcript dated February 25, 2000 from Sweetwater College
Copy of LaserGrade Computer Test Report dated March 2, 2000
Copy of certificate dated February 23, 2000
Copy of DD Form 214
Letter from applicant's mother dated January 25, 2000
Letter from Phi Theta Kappa re: dues dated January 13, 2000
Letter from Phi Theta Kappa dated January 14, 2000
Letter to applicant dated December 2, 1999
Copy of college transcript dated November 22, 1999
Letter from applicant, undated and unsigned
Copy of Student information sheet
Copy of SAT and Pre-SAT and ACT tests scores
Copy of academic achievement record
Letter of recommendation undated from President, OMENCO, Inc.
Letter of recommendation dated October 20, 1993
Letter of recommendation from Athletic Director, undated
Letter of recommendation dated October 11, 1993
Letter of recommendation, undated from Principal
Letter of recommendation, undated for social studies instructor
Letter of recommendation from Scout Master dated October 11, 1993
Copy of Merit Badges
Copy of citation
Copy of appreciation
Copy of certificate of appreciation dated November 28, 1997
Copy of certificate of completion dated January 15, 1998
Copy of certificate dated May 28, 1998
Copy of certificate dated March 23, 1995
Copy of accepted for enlistment dated December 15, 1994
Copy of letter re: authority to assume the title and wear the uniform of a third class petty officer dated January 15, 1998
Copy of one page of enlistment contract, Annex A dated December 15, 1994
Copy of Montgomery GI Bill dated December 29, 1994
Copy of letter to applicant's parents dated August 8, 1997 with copy of feature story written about applicant
Copy of statement in support of claim dated August 25, 1999
Copy of statement in support of claim dated September 2, 1999
Copy of statement in support of claim dated August 19, 1999
Copy of statement in support of claim dated August 25, 1999
Copy of statement in support of claim dated August 19, 1999
Copy of statement in support of claim dated August 21, 1999
Copy of statement in support of claim undated and newspaper article
Copy of statement in support of claim dated August 26, 1999
Copy of statement in support of claim dated August 25, 1999
Copy of statement in support of claim dated August 30, 1999
Copy of statement in support of claim dated September 2, 1999
Copy of statement in support of claim dated September 7, 1999
Copy of statement in support of claim dated September 9, 1999
Copy of statement in support of claim dated August 20, 1999
Copy of statement in support of claim dated August 17, 1999
Copy of statement in support of claim dated August 17, 1999
Copy of statement in support of claim dated August 17, 1999
Copy of statement in support of claim dated August 19, 1999
Copy of statement in support of claim dated August 23, 1999
Copy of statement in support of claim dated August 24, 1999
Copy of statement in support of claim dated August 23, 1999
Copy of college transcript dated May 25, 2000

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   None
	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	941215 - 941227	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  941228		Date of Discharge:  981217

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    03  11  20
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  84

Highest Rate:  EM3

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  NMF			Behavior:  NMF		OTA:  NMF

Military Decorations:  None

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

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-146, formerly 3630620.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

981119:	NAVDRUGLAB, San Diego, CA reports urine sample received 981112 tested positive for methamphetamine.

981120:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92 (2 specs): Dereliction of duty, violation of UCMJ, Article 112A: Wrongful use of a controlled subtance, to wit: methamphetamine.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $591 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to EMFN.  No indication of appeal in the record.

981120:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse as evidenced by detection of methamphetamine in command urinalysis.

981120:  	Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights.

981120:	Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse (use). 

981214:	Commander, Cruiser-Destroyer Group ONE directed the applicant's discharge general (under 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 981217 general (under 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 applicant’s issue 1, the Board found that the applicant did have a good service record and has put forth a impressive effort through community service, employment, and educational achievements in attempting to recoup his reputation which has been sullied by his misconduct in the Navy.  In his issue, the applicant states that his “punishment does not fit the offense” and his “discharge was too harsh”.  The applicant should realize that an Other Than Honorable discharge is normally issued for a violation of UCMJ Article 112a: drug abuse.  The applicant’s former command obviously took into account the applicant’s service record and how close he was to finishing his tour by discharging him with a General (Under Honorable Conditions).
The Board has also determined that the applicant’s post-service record, though commendable, does not warrant an upgrade to Honorable.  The applicant’s service is accurately characterized as having been performed Under Honorable Conditions.  Relief denied.

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