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

ex-AA, USN
Docket No. ND01-00006

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 001003, 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 010313.  After a thorough review of the records, 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 – Drug abuse (Use), authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630620.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues (verbatim)

1.  My discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident in 27 mos above average service.  In 8 yrs since-no related charges or offenses, post civilian life.  I believe my youthful age was a factor in mature discision making.  It if were possible to alter time, the out come now would be that this application was never written by me.  Please consider this sincere apology to myself and government also my command.  And grant me this wish.  Please upgrade my discharge to H4.

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)	890825 - 890913	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  890914			Date of Discharge:  920413

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    02  07  00
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  17 Parental Consent		Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12				AFQT:  49

Highest Rate:  AN

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  4.00 (4)	Behavior:  3.35 (4)		OTA:  3.75

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NDSM, SASM with Bronze Star, SSDR

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Misconduct – Drug abuse (Use), authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630620.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

920224:	NAVDRUGLAB, Oakland, CA reports applicant's urine sample, received 31Jan92, tested positive for marijuana.

920311:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 112A: Wrongful use of a controlled substance, to with: marijuana in January 1992.
	Award: Forfeiture of 1/2 months pay per month for 1 month, restriction for 30 days, reduction to AA.  Forfeiture suspended for 3 months.  No indication of appeal in the record.

920311:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse as evidenced by Commanding Officer's NJP of 11 Mar 92.

920311:  	Applicant advised of his rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge Board.

920325:	Applicant waived right to an administrative discharge board.

920326:	Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse (use). 

920327:	Medical evaluation for drug abuse found the applicant not to be a drug dependent.

920404:	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 920413 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, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (C and D).

In response to the applicant’s issue, the applicant implies that a permissive doctrine exists whereby one in the military is allowed an "isolated incident".  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 Board also 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. The Board will not grant relief on the basis of this issue.

The following is provided for the applicant’s edification.  The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge (D).  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.  Navy Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), effective 15 Aug 91 until 04 Mar 93, 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