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

 ex-RM1, USN
Docket No. ND00-00233
 
Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 991208, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable.  The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review.  The applicant listed AMERICAN LEGION as his 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: UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630620.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

1.  (EQUITY ISSUE) This former member avers that he was erroneously discharged because he never used any unlawful substances.  On this basis, he opines that upgrade of his character of service to full honorable is warranted.

2.  (EQUITY ISSUE) This former member further requests 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 her application. 

Documentation

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

Letters to Honorable D_____ P_____ (2) (3pgs)
Adverse Performance Evaluation Statement (2 copies) 
Special Request Authorization Chits (2 copies)
Request for Mast from Commanding Officer, Naval Computer and Telecommunications Area Master Station LANT (2 copies).
Letter from applicant in regards to Denial of Trial by Courts Martial (2)
Adverse Performance Evaluation Report
Evaluation Report & Counseling Record (3pgs) (2 copies)
Copies of DD Form 214 (3)
Copy of Resume (2)(2pgs)
Copy of Commander, Naval Base, Norfolk discharge authority.
Congressional Request
Letter to Honorable D____ P____ (2pgs)
Letter from G____ D. M____, PC (2 copies)
Special Request Authorization Chit (3)
Letter from applicant to Senator W____ M. L____
Copy of Radioman Second Class Citation
Copy of Radioman First Class Citation
Copy of Transcript from Technical Career Institute, Inc (2 pgs)
Copies of Electronic Technician Certificates (2)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   USN			800912 - 841125	HON
		   USN			841126 - 920123	HON
		   USN			920124 - 960102	HON
	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	800214 - 800911	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  960103		Date of Discharge:  971022

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    01  09  19
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  17			Years Contracted:  4 

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  50

Highest Rate:  RM1

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.00 (1)	Behavior:  1.00 (1)		OTA:  1.86

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NMCOSR(2), MUCR (3), NDSM, NUCR, SASMwb*, KLM(SAUDI), NMCAM (2), NEM, CGSOS, 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:

970103:	Reenlisted at NAVCOMTELSTA DIEGO GARCIA for 4 years.

970402:	NAVDRUGLAB, JACKSONVILLE, FL, reported applicant's urine sample, received 970310, tested positive for [THC].

970604:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse as evidenced by NAVDRUGLAB JACKSONVILLE FL 021700Z APR 97.

970606:	Applicant advised of his rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge Board.

970624:	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.

970924:	Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse (use). 

971010:	Commander, Naval Base, Norfolk authorized 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 971022 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).

The applicant’s first issue states:  “(EQUITY ISSUE) This former member avers that he was erroneously discharged because he never used any unlawful substances.  On this basis, he opines that upgrade of his character of service to full honorable is warranted.”
The NDRB found no administrative error in the applicant’s discharge.  NAVDRUGLAB JACKSONVILLE FL 021700Z Apr 97 reported the applicant’s urine sample tested positive for THC.  The applicant refused NJP and demanded trial by court martial.  The applicant appeared before an Administrative Board that recommended separation for misconduct.  The NDRB did not find any errors in the applicant’s discharge.  Relief is denied.

The applicant’s second issue states:  “(EQUITY ISSUE) This former member further requests 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.  The following is provided for the applicant’s edification.  The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge.  The applicant must be aware that there is no law or regulation which provides that an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time, or good conduct in the civilian life subsequent to leaving the service.  Normally, to permit relief, an error or injustice must have been found to have existed during the period of enlistment in question.  Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent that such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review, may be considered by the NDRB.  Relief is not warranted.  

The applicant is reminded that he is eligible for a personal appearance hearing provided the application is received within 15 years from the date of discharge.  Representation at personal appearance hearing is highly recommended.

 

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Navy Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 14, effective 
03 Oct 96 until 11 Dec 97, Article 3630620  SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL 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