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

ex-WTSR, USN
Docket No. ND01-00077 

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 001023, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable and the reason for the discharge be changed to "misconduct" only.  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 010329.  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.  My undesirable discharge was inequitable because it was one incident in 2 years and three months and had it been elected so I would have been allowed to stay in the service.

Documentation

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

Copy of grade report from Coker College, Hartsville, SC
Character reference dated September 22, 2000
Letter from applicant dated September 22, 2000
Character reference, undated
Six pages from applicant's service record
Copy of DD Form 214

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   None
	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	860730 - 870624	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  870625			Date of Discharge:  891212

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    02  05  18
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  17 Parental Consent		Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12				AFQT:  69

Highest Rate:  WTSN

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  2.30 (2)	Behavior:  2.30 (2)		OTA:  3.20

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  AFEM

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  29 

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:

890822:	Special Court Martial
	Charge I: violation of the UCMJ, Article 86:
	Specification:  Unauthorized absence from 0730, 15May89 to 1948, 13Jun89 (29 days/surrendered).
	Charge II: violation of the UCMJ, Article 112A:
	Specification: Wrongfully use methamphetamine on 7Feb89.
	Charge III: violation of the UCMJ, Article 132:
	Specification:  Preparing and presenting a NAVPERS 1070/602 dependency application/record of emergency data form, and a VHA certificate to the disbursing officer, an officer authorized to pay such claim, and thereafter submitting constructive claims by receiving her military pay composed of VHA, present for payment claims against the United States in the amount of $1,118.80 between May88 to Mar89.
	Findings: to Charge I, II and III and specifications thereunder, guilty.
	Sentence: CHL for 45 days, forfeiture of $466 per month for 2 months, reduction to WTSR.
	CA 891003:  Sentence approved and ordered executed.

891013:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense and misconduct due to drug abuse.

891013:  	Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult consulted 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.

891025:	Drug Dependency Screening: Applicant has no physical or psychological dependence upon methamphetamine or other drugs.

891030:	Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense and misconduct due to drug abuse.
 
891108:	Chief of Naval Personnel forwarded recommendation to Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower and Reserve Affairs).
 
891115:	Secretary of the Navy directed applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

891120:	CNMPC directed the applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT 
REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 891212 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 applicant implies that a permissive doctrine exists whereby one in the military is allowed a single “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 applicant is responsible for her actions and must accept the consequences of her misdeeds.  The Board will not grant relief on the basis of this issue.  

The applicant requested that the reason for her discharge be changed to “misconduct” only.  The NDRB, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of a discharge, will change the reason for discharge if such a change is warranted.  The service record clearly documents the serious offenses which resulted in the applicant’s discharge.  No other Narrative Reason for Separation could more clearly describe why the applicant was discharged.  To change the Narrative Reason for Separation would be inappropriate.

The following is provided for the applicant’s edification.  The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge.  However, 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, is considered.  The applicant provided two character references  and a college grade report as documentation of her post-service.  The applicant's efforts need to be more encompassing than those provided.  The applicant should have produced more evidence of continuing educational pursuits, a verifiable employment record, documentation of community service, certification of non-involvement with civil authorities and proof of her not using drugs in order for consideration for clemency based on post-service conduct.  At this time the applicant has not provided sufficient documentation of good character and conduct.  Therefore no relief will be granted.  She is encouraged to continue with her pursuits and is reminded that she is eligible for a personal appearance hearing provided the application is received within 15 years from the date of discharge.  Relief denied.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560A), Change 7, effective 
25 May 89 until 20 Aug 89, Article 3630600, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL 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 112a, for wrongfully using methamphetamines, 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