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

 ex-AOAN, USN
Docket No. ND01-00427

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 010222, 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 010829.  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.  Discharged in absentia.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues (verbatim)

1.  To Whom It May Concern,  On April 11, 1994 I, (applicant), received a discharge other than honorable from the U.S. Navy. This was a sign of negligence, immaturity, and lack of responsibility on my behalf.  This is not something I am proud of simply because serving 4 years in the U.S. Navy had built a different character one in which I chose not to demonstrate for foolish reasons. Shortly after my discharge I re-evaluated everything I had learned and decided to make the necessary changes to better myself as a man, a citizen, and representative for the U.S. Navy. Upon my evaluation I had a chance to reflect back on all of the accomplishments I made at the time of my service realizing not only did I receive awards and medals, I earned them.  I am a proud recipient of The National Defense Service Medal, Joint Meritorious Unit Award, Sea Service Deployment Ribbon 2nd, South West Asia Service Medal IBS, Meritorious Unit Commendation and the Navy Battle "E" Award.  Not to mention my education in the Aviation Orangeman’s class "A" school.  Also, a letter of commendation has been received, that which you will find enclosed along with this letter. In order to survive as well as show my responsibility I have maintained employment with Pecos Energy from 1995 to 1998 and from 1998 to present I have been employed with Federal Express.
I am an individual who is proud of these accomplishments never to be taken from me, however, I have taken from self the honor I should have received and at this time I am trying to gain that by requesting an upgrade to my DD214 to Honorable Discharge.  Upgrading this will give me the opportunity to continue to advance in my life and through out society.  Also, it will help bring closure on a major area of my life that I feel is left undone. With all sincerity I hope this request can become a possibility.
Thanking you in advance for your cooperation and time concerning the above matter.

Sincerely,

Documentation

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

Copy of citation
Copy of DD Form 214
Job/character reference dated March 8, 1999
Copy of appraisal
Copy of Bravo Zulu certificate dated January 19, 1999 and letter dated March 15, 1999
Copy of performance review dated June 16, 1999
Copy of online employee performance review dated March 5, 2001 (29 pages)
Copy of voucher
Copy of TEMADD group travel list
Copy of veterans educational assistance acts of 1984
Admissions Testing Program
Support Equipment Formal Training Certificate and qualification form dated February 5, 1991 and February 4, 1991
Support Equipment Formal Training Certificate and qualification form dated January 14, 1991 and January 14, 1991
Thirty-three pages from applicant's service record

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   None
	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	891115 - 900729	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  900730			Date of Discharge:  940411

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    03  08  12
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  17 Parental Consent		Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12				AFQT:  51

Highest Rate:  AO3

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  NMF				Behavior:  NMF		OTA:  NMF

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NDSM, JMU, SSDR (2), SASM with 1 Bronze Star, MUC, BER

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  70

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:

891114:	Applicant signed Drug and Alcohol Abuse Statement of Understanding.

900803:	Applicant briefed on Navy's policy on drug and alcohol abuse.

931018:	NAVDRUGLAB, Norfolk, VA reports applicant's urine sample, received 930108, tested positive for THC.

931102:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 112A: Wrongful use of marijuana on October 1993.
	Award: Forfeiture of $520 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to AOANA.  No indication of appeal in the record.

931102:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.

931123:	Applicant advised of his rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge Board.

931213:	Drug and Alcohol Abuse Report: Marijuana abuse, less than monthly, ashore off duty.  Unit sweep urinalysis 931108.  CAAC recommended separate not via VA hospital.  Physician found applicant not dependent and recommended separate not via VA hospital.  Commanding Officer recommended separate not via VA hospital.  Comments: 21 year old male with 3 years of active naval service.  Identified by unit sweep for use of a controlled substance.  Diagnosed by medical officer as not dependent.  Being processed for administrative separation.

931213:	Medical evaluation for drug abuse found the applicant to be a drug abuser, not drug dependent.

940131:	Applicant to unauthorized absence 0700, 31Jan94.

940204:	An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence and by unanimous vote, found that the applicant had committed misconduct due to drug abuse, that the misconduct warranted separation, and recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions.

940303:	Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse (use).

940324:	BUPERS directed the applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse (use).  Discharged in absentia.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT 
REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 940411, in absentia, 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 response to the applicant’s issue, the Board 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 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 job performance reviews as documentation of his post-service.  The applicant's efforts need to be more encompassing than those provided.  The applicant should have produced evidence of continuing educational pursuits, documentation of community service, certification of non-involvement with civil authorities and proof of his 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.  He 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.  Relief denied.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Navy Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 5/93, effective 
05 Mar 93 until 21 Jul 94, 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 "afls10.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