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

 ex-AMSAA, USN
Docket No. ND00-00778

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 000605, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to General/under Honorable conditions and the reason for the discharge be changed to hardship transfer.  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 010126.  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.  At my time of service, I paid as much attention to protect my life as possible.  This discharge was administered under a president who cradled his service members throughout his actions.  Please characterize myself as someone who played a role in this Presidential action.  Thank you.

2.  My discharge was based on an illegal urinalysis test.

Documentation

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

Statement from applicant dated May 16, 2000
Copy of DD Form 214

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   None
	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	951129 - 960226	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  960227		Date of Discharge:  971220

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    01  09  24
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  27			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  77

Highest Rate:  AMSAN

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  NMF		Behavior:  NMF		OTA:  NMF

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  AFSM, AFEM, 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:

971119:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 112A: Wrongful use of controlled substance.
	Award: Forfeiture of 1/2 pay per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to AMSAA.  Forfeiture suspended for 6 months.  No indication of appeal in the record.
971119:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under Other Than Honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to Drug abuse as evidenced by your nonjudicial punishment on 19 November 1997 for the wrongful use of marijuana, in violation of Article 112A, UCMJ.

971119:  	Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ, Article 27B, elected to waive all rights.

971203:	Commanding officer recommended discharge under Other Than Honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to Drug abuse (Use). 

971209:	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 971220 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).

Issue 1.  The applicant failed to provide a comprehensible issue.  Relief denied.

Issue 2.  The Board determined this issue is without merit.  The applicant tested positive for marijuana use as a result of a command urinalysis sweep.  Relief denied.  

The following is provided for the benefit of the applicant.  Normally, to permit relief, an error or injustice must have existed during the period of enlistment in question.  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 civilian life, subsequent to leaving the service.  However, the NDRB is authorized to consider outstanding post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge, 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.  Verifiable proof of any post-service accomplishments must be provided in order for the applicant to claim post-service conduct and behavior as a reason to upgrade a less than Honorable discharge.  Evidence of continuing educational pursuits, an employment record, documentation of community service, certification of non-involvement with civil authorities and proof of his not using drugs, are examples of verifiable documents that should have been provided to receive consideration for clemency based on post-service conduct.  The applicant did not provide any of these documents.  He is reminded that he is eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of his discharge.  The applicant can provide additional documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments at that time.  Representation at personal appearance hearing is highly recommended but not required.

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