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

 ex-DKSN, USN
Docket No. ND00-00803

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 000608, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable.  The applicant requested a personal appearance hearing in the Washington National Capital Region.  The applicant did not list any representative on the DD Form 293.  In the acknowledgement letter to the applicant, the applicant was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 010111.  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 1910-146, formerly Article 3630620.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues (verbatim)

1.  My discharge is being requested for review because of situations leading up to or governing my decision and my action taken.  In 63 months of service I performed my duties to the fullest extent possible.  I had made a few mistakes, but always proved my self as a valuable asset to my office and chain of command.  On the night in question there were allot of things that influenced my decision.  I was in a type of mind state that was very influenced by grief and hurt.  The situations that led to this were the fact that my grandmother was dying and I had just found out about it, also I was going through difficulties because my car was just wrecked and they were trying to kick me out of my apartment.  I know that these few issues don't equal actually to much, but when you a big ego and think that you can deal with everything by yourself instead of asking for help its different.  Then when you look at peer pressure from people telling you that if you do one thing to help you, knowing that it's wrong anyway and still do it doesn't really say allot either.  In closing, I hope that the few reasons that I gave you will help some way.  As far as for myself, I know that I made a mistake and regret all that has happened, but as a man accept the responsibilities of my actions.  I also believe that all people make mistakes and deserve a second chance, that was my mistake and now I'm on my second chance.

Documentation

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

Copy of DD Form 214

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   None
	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	930909 - 940516	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  940517		Date of Discharge:  990827

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    05  03  11
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  19			Years Contracted:  4 (24 months extension)

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  58

Highest Rate:  DK3

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.60 (2)	Behavior:  3.70 (2)		OTA:  3.60	4.0 evals
Performance:  3.75 (4)	Behavior:  2.25 (4)		OTA:  3.17	5.0 evals

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  SSDR (2), NATO, AFSM (2), NUC, AFEM, NDSM, SASM, Letter of Commendation

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 1910-146, formerly 3630620.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

960817:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92 (2 specs): (1) Fail to obey a lawful general regulation, to wit: Navy regs, Art 1159, dated 14Sep90, by wrongfully possessing one pair of aluminum knuckles onboard a naval vessel, (2) Disobey a lawful written order, to wit: TR SORM, Art 26100, dated 2Dec93, by wrongfully possessing one motorola pager.
	Award: Forfeiture of $200 per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duty for 20 days.  No indication of appeal in the record.

970817:	Applicant to unauthorized absence 0730-1230, 17Aug97 (5 hours).

971215:	Applicant to unauthorized absence 0700-0900, 15Dec97 (2 hours).

990706:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 91: Insubordinate conduct toward warrant officer, noncommissioned officer or petty officer on 28May99, violation of UCMJ Article 112A: Wrongful use of marijuana on 9Jun99.
	Award: Forfeiture of $500 per month for 1 month, extra duty for 20 days, reduction to DKSN.  Forfeiture suspended for 6 months.  No indication of appeal in the record.

990721:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse and pattern of misconduct.

990721:  	Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights.

990728:	Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse (use) and pattern of misconduct. 

990804:	Commander, Navy Region, Mid-Atlantic 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 990827 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).

In the applicant’s issue 1, the Board found nothing in the records nor did the applicant submit any supporting documentation that showed that his personal problems were of sufficient magnitude that they could not be resolved through standard military channels or by the applicant’s chain of command.  In fact, the Board found that the applicant’s age, education, test scores, prior service, promotions and awards were sufficient to qualify him for enlistment.  The Board will not grant relief on the basis of this issue.

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 encouraged to continue with his pursuits and is reminded that he is eligible for a personal appearance hearing provided the application is received within 15-years from the date of discharge.

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