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

ex-ADAA, USN
Docket No. ND01-00615

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 010405, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable and the reason for the discharge be changed to "In The Interest Of The Military".  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 011018.  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 and reason for 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 (verbatim)

1.  I am requesting that my discharge be upgraded to the highest possible level due to the fact that I had one isolated incident in 30 months of service, and have otherwise an exemplary service record.

Documentation

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

Copy of DD Form 214
Character reference dated April 27, 2001
Copy of DAPA admin screening form

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   None
	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	921130 - 931011	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  931012		Date of Discharge:  960412

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    02  06  01
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  37

Highest Rate:  AD3

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  4.00 (2)	Behavior:  4.00 (2)		OTA:  4.00

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  MUC, SSDR, NDSM

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:

960206:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 112A (4 specs): (1) Wrongfully use lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) in October 1994, (2) Wrongfully use LSD in November 1994, (3) Wrongfully use LSD September through October 1995, (4) Wrongfully use LSD on 26 January 1996.
	Award: Forfeiture of $490 per month for 2 months, restriction for 60 days, reduction to ADAA.  No indication of appeal in the record.

960206:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse as evidenced by a conviction at Commanding Officer's Mast on 6 February 1996.

960206:	Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult 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.

960208:	Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse (use).  Commanding Officer's comments: I have carefully reviewed ADAA (applicant's) service record.  His performance had been satisfactory until this incident.  On 6 February 1996, the command received a report of LSD use by ADAA (applicant) from a NCIS investigation.  ADAA (applicant) admitted his guilt at Commanding Officer's Mast on 6 February 1996.  His actions are intolerable and he has no potential for further service in the United States Navy.  Recommend ADAA (applicant) be separated with a characterization of Other Than Honorable.

960322:	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 960412 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 1, the Board found 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 applicant is responsible for his actions and must accept the consequences of his misdeeds.  The Board will not grant relief on the basis of this issue.

The NDRB, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an applicant's discharge, will change the reason for discharge if such a change is warranted.  The summary of service clearly documents that drug abuse was the reason the applicant was discharged.  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 one character reference 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, a verifiable employment record, 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 9/94, effective 
22 Jul 94 until 02 Oct 96, 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