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

 ex-AA, USN
Docket No. ND01-00761

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 010514, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable or general/under honorable conditions and the reason for the discharge be changed to medical.  The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review.  The applicant did not list representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 011127.  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 – Drug abuse (Use), authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630620.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issue verbatum

1.  I was in the Navy for 1 year, in either 1988 or 89.  I had a dirty drug test, and at my hearing it was declared that my punishment was to be busted down a rank to E-2, and 30 days in the brig.  While at Memphis, one of the doctors noticed and oversized blood vein in my arm and chest. It was discovered that I have a blood clot in the main arterie in the right side of my chest.  They sent me to Bethesda Maryland.  The plan was to run a steel cable with a ballon on the end up my vein to the clot, blow up the ballon and the clot will pass.  The doctor in Bethesda walked into the office, looked at me, and told me to go home, there was nothing they could do to help me.  If they used the balloon and the dot passes he said it would go straight to my heart and kill me.  He also said that they couldn't cut it out because its in the main arteries, they wouldn't be able to stop the bleeding & I would bleed to death.  So when I got back to Memphis, there was another hearing where it was decided, all of sudden, that they were just going to discharge me with an O.T.H.  I don't remember the reason they used.  But, I know it wasn't right what they did, and I doubt legally, that they could do it.  I would appreciate it if you would look into the matter for me.

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:   USN			None
	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	890419 - 890420	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  890421		Date of Discharge:  891120

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    00  07  00
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  25			Years Contracted:  4 

Education Level:  14			AFQT:  59

Highest Rate:  AA

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  NOB		Behavior:  2.80 (1)		OTA:  2.80

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  None

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:

890423:	Applicant briefed upon and certified understanding of Navy's policy concerning illegal use of drugs.

890700:	NAVDRUGLAB, GREAT LAKES, IL urinalysis report indicates applicant tested positive for cocaine.

890802:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 112a: Wrongful use of a controlled substance on or between 890614 and 890624.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $391.00 per month for 1 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to E-2.  No indication of appeal in the record.

890803:	NAS MEMPHIS CAAC Drug Dependency screening indicates applicant was diagnosed as chemically dependent-in remission.

890803:	Memorandum from NATTC DAPA to CDR, First Regiment recommending that applicant be processed for Administrative Separation.  CDR, First Regiment concurred with the recommendation.

890914:	DAAR indicates cocaine abuse as a result of a service directed urinalysis, found not dependent, not eligible, recommended for separation not via VA Hospital.

891101:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse as evidenced by all incidents of drug abuse which have occurred during your current enlistment.

891101:	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.

881103:	Commanding Officer, Naval Air Technical Training Center, Millington recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse (use).

891107:	Chief of Naval Technical Training authorized 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 891120 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).

The applicant’s issue describes his service and a medical condition he had on active duty.  He states that he does not recall the reason for discharge and requested the Board examine the discharge for propriety.  The NDRB found the basis for the applicant’s discharge was his wrongful use of cocaine.  The record shows the applicant received NJP for his drug use and was properly processed for separation from the Naval Service.  The Board found no impropriety in the discharge.  The Board found the discharge of Other Than Honorable accurately and equitably characterizes the applicant’s service.  Relief is not warranted.

The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the re characterization of a discharge.  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 failed to provide documentary evidence to demonstrate his sobriety, positive community service, employment history, and clean police record.  Relief is not warranted.

The applicant remains 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 recommended. 

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Navy Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560A), Change 6, effective 11 Jan 89 until 13 Jun 90, 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