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

 ex-ICFR, USN
Docket No. ND00-00455 

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 000229, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions.  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 010104.  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 – commission of a serious offense, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues (verbatim)

1.  I was young then; the time I spent in the service I learned many things that I am still applying to my life as a civilian.  I am more mature today.  I am sorry for the trouble I caused while aboard the U.S.S. TARAWA LHA-1.

Documentation

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

Copy of DD Form 214 (2 copies)
Applicant's Resume´

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   None
	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	830906 - 840513	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  840514		Date of Discharge:  860226

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    01  09  13 (Doesn't exclude lost time)
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  22			Years Contracted:  4 

Education Level:  14			AFQT:  63

Highest Rate:  ICFA

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:  25 

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Misconduct – commission of a serious offense, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

850809:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 112A:  on or about 85JUL22, wrongfully used marijuana (a schedule one controlled substance).
	Award:  Forfeiture of $310 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to E-1.  No indication of appeal in the record.

850919:	Retention Warning:  Advised of deficiency (drug abuse), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning. 
	
851115:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86:  unauthorized absence from 0700, 85NOV14 until 0810, 85NOV14; violation of UCMJ Article 91: insubordinate conduct toward a NCO; violation of UCMJ Article 111: drunken driving.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $319 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days.  No indication of appeal in the record.

860129:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct  due to pattern of drug abuse, misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

860129:	Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights except the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation.

860131:	Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to pattern of misconduct, misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense and misconduct due to drug abuse.  Commanding officer’s comments (verbatim):  "Since reporting onboard TARAWA, ICFA (Applicant) has been administered CO's NJP on two separate occasions.  The first occasion was violation of the UCMJ, Article 112A, wrongful use of a controlled substance, to wit: marijuana.  On this initial appearance at mast, ICFA (Applicant) was assigned to the command's urinalysis program.  This program is designed to act as a deterrent for identified drug users to refrain from any further drug use.  Since being assigned to the program, ICFA (Applicant) has had four positive urinalysis test for THC on 85NOV12, 85NOV14, 85DEC26, and 86JAN02.  This continuing pattern of drug abuse plus ICFA (Applicant)'s additional offenses which were punished under the UCMJ, show how fruitless any further counseling and/or disciplinary action would be in this case.  In addition, ICFA (Applicant) signed an administrative counseling/warning (Pg 13) on 85SEP19 acknowledging any further deficiencies or misconduct in his performance would result in administrative processing.  By his actions it is apparent that ICFA (Applicant) does not intend to finish the remainder of his enlistment without further involvement with military authorities.  He leaves this command no recourse but to strongly recommend he be separated form naval service with an other than honorable discharge."

860205:	CNMPC requested USS TARAWA conduct an alcohol dependency eval by medical officer.

860207:	CO, USS TARAWA advised CNMPC that applicant UA from ship 0700, 31JAN86, unable to conduct alcohol dependency eval, record indicates only one alcohol related incident and request permission to discharge in absentia.

860221:	CNMPC directed the applicant's discharge, without return to military control, under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

860226:	Applicant discharged in absentia.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT 
REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 860226 in absentia 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 response to the applicant’s issue, the Board found that the applicant's age, education level, and test scores qualified him for enlistment.  While he may feel that his immaturity was a factor that contributed to his action, the record clearly reflects his willful disregard for the requirements of military discipline and demonstrated that he was unfit for further service.  The record is devoid of evidence that the applicant was not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions.  This is not an issue for which the Board will grant relief.  

The following is provided for the applicant’s edification.  The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge (E).  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.  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.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560, Change 10/85, effective 
16 Dec 85 until 05 Oct 86),  Article 3630600, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED MEMBERS BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT – COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE.

B.  Under the Manual for Courts-Martial, a punitive discharge is authorized for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 91, for insubordinate conduct  toward a superior NCO, 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