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

ex-AOAA, USN
Docket No. ND00-00690

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 000508, 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 010406.  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 (verbatim)

1.  Clemency is warranted because it is an injustice for me to continue to suffer the adverse consequences of a bad discharge.

My average conduct and efficiency ratings/behavior and proficiency marks were good.

I received letters of recommendation

I was so close to finishing my tour that it was unfair to give me a bad discharge.

I have been a good citizen since discharge.

My ability to serve was impaired by my youth and immaturity.

I faced racial discrimination and that impaired my ability to serve.

I should have gotten a medical discharge becaurse I was not medically qualified to serve.

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:   None
	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	911023 - 920831	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  920901		Date of Discharge:  960607

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    03  09  07
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  41

Highest Rate:  AOAN

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  4.00 (3)	Behavior:  4.00 (3)		OTA:  4.00	4.0 evals
Performance:  3.00 (1)	Behavior:  2.00 (1)		OTA:  2.67	5.0 evals

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NDSM, SSDR

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:

960405:	Medical evaluation for drug abuse found the applicant to be a drug abuser, not drug dependent.   

960422:	Drug and Alcohol Abuse Report: Marijuana abuse, ashore off duty.  Random urinalysis 960325.  Medical recommends separate not via VA hospital.  Physician found applicant not dependent and recommends separate not via VA hospital.  Commanding officer recommends separate not via VA hospital.

960424:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 112A: Wrongful use of marijuana.
	Award: Forfeiture of $490 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to AOAA.  No indication of appeal in the record.

960425:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse as evidenced by all drug incidents in your current enlistment.

960425:  	Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights.

960426:	Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse (use). 

960521:	BUPERS 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 960607 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 states in issue 1 that his “average conduct and efficiency ratings/behavior and proficiency marks were good” and he “received letters of recommendation.”  The Board found that the applicant’s evaluation marks were average.  The Board found that the applicant’s misconduct outweighed the positive aspects of his service and he was therefore deserving of an other than honorable discharge.  

Although the applicant was close to finishing his enlistment, this is not a reason to upgrade the applicant’s discharge.  The applicant committed a violation of the UCMJ by using marijuana and was properly and equitably discharged for misconduct due to drug abuse.

The applicant states he has been a good citizen since his discharge and clemency is warranted .  There is no law or regulation that provides for the upgrade of an unfavorable discharge based solely on the passage of time, or good conduct in the civilian life subsequent to leaving the Service.  However, the Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge (D).  Those factors include, but are not limited to, the following:  evidence of continuing educational pursuits (transcripts, diplomas, degrees, vocational-technical certificates), a verifiable employment record (Letter of Recommendation from boss), documentation of community service (letter from the activity/community group), certification of non-involvement with civil authorities (police records check) and proof of his not using drugs (detoxification certificate, AA meeting attendance or letter documenting participation in the program) in order for consideration for clemency based on post-service conduct.  At this time, the applicant has not provided any documentation of good character and conduct.  Therefore no relief will be granted.  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.

The applicant states he faced “racial discrimination” which impaired his ability to serve.  The Board found nothing in the records, nor did the applicant provide anything to indicate or to show that there exists an error of fact, law, procedure, or discretion associated with his discharge at the time of its issuance, and that his rights were prejudiced thereby.  Furthermore, there has been no change in policy by the Navy, or higher authority, made expressly retroactive to the type of discharge received by the applicant. 

The applicant implies that a permissive doctrine exists whereby one in the military is allowed a “single misdeed”.  The Board believes that the applicant is confusing this with the civilian world wherein some offenses are treated with leniency because they are a first time incident on an otherwise clear record.  No such leniency exists in the military.  The applicant is responsible for his actions and must accept the consequences of his misdeeds.  The Board will not grant relief on the basis of this issue.

The Board does not have the authority to change a discharge to a medical discharge as the applicant requested in issue 1.  No relief will be granted based on these issues. 

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Navy Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 9/94, effective 
22 Jul 94 until 02 Oct 96, 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