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

 ex-ATAA, USN
Docket No. ND01-00874

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 010621, 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 020110.  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 1910-146, formerly Article 3630620.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

1.  To whom it may concern,

I really don't know where to start.  I can explain the obvious, that what I did was the most foolish mistake I've ever made.  But again that would be the obvious.  I could explain how what I've accomplished after being 'kicked out of the Navy' is anything less than honorable.  Yet I don't believe that will impact your decision greatly.  I believe throughout this review you ask yourself, "Does anything give reason for this panel to upgrade this discharge?".  There may very well not be any reason, given the standards of the military, the Navy.  I am simply asking you to consider the manner in which I was found guilty of the crime I admitted to committing.  Then, should this person be held accountable for his mistake for the rest of his life. I began typing a detailed description of what led up to my discharge, exactly what had happened, every part of the procedure, etc.  But I realized that it is all documented already.  I am going to get straight to the point.  The only reason I was found guilty is because I told the truth.  Not because I had to, only because I did not want to live a lie, and I believed I was doing the honorable thing.  I told the truth after my urinalysis came back negative for any drugs.  I told the truth after a search of my personal belongings turned up negative.  The only evidence that was relevant was my word.  To this day I would still be in the Navy if I had not done the fight thing and told the truth.  Some of my friends that were discharged with me believe that lying about the entire chain of events is the best way to achieve an upgrade.  I disagree that lying is any way to achieve anything honorable. Should I be held accountable for the rest of my life?  Maybe you believe I should, because nonetheless, I did do those things.  The reason I have taken your time is because I believe I should not be stamped with an Other Than Honorable discharge for the rest of my life.  Coming home to a landscape of shame and dishonor and the realization of what had happened was enough for any grown man to give up. But I didn't, I continue to succeed to this day.  I pray you will see my other than honorable behavior fulfilled and do what you believe is the right thing.  Sincerely,

Documentation

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

Statement from applicant dated June 15, 2001
Character reference from applicant's father
Character reference from applicant's mother dated May 5, 2001
Character reference from Dining Room Manager, Mohonk Mountain House dated October 31, 2000
Letter in support of applicant from House of Representatives dated November 8, 2000
Copy of DD Form 214 (Member 1) (2 copies)
Copies of performance information dated April 12, 1999
Copy of certificate of completion dated December 8, 1998
Copy of certificate of completion dated February 9, 1999
Copy of certificate of completion dated April 12, 1999
Copy of certificate of completion dated 26 - 30 April 1999

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   None
	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	980521 - 980721	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  980722		Date of Discharge:  000614

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    01  10  23
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  80

Highest Rate:  ATAN

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.00 (1)	Behavior:  1.00 (1)		OTA:  2.67

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NER, AFEM, SSDR, OSR

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 1910-146, formerly 3630620.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

000429:	Applicant's statement can be found on microfiche.

000430:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.

000430:	Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights.

000501:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 112A: Wrongful use of a controlled substance.
	Award: Forfeiture of $586 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to ATAA.  No indication of appeal in the record.

000502:	Medical evaluation for drug abuse found the applicant to be a drug abuser, not drug dependent.  

000504:	Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse (use).

000512:	Commander, Carrier Group FIVE 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 000614 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).

Issue 1.  The Board found that the applicant’s alleged honesty surrounding his drug related activities while on active duty does not mitigate his misconduct.  The applicant used illegal drugs.  Drug abuse warranted processing for separation, normally under other than honorable conditions.  The discharge was proper and equitable.  Relief denied.

The applicant did not provide sufficient documentation to warrant an upgrade to his discharge based upon post-service conduct.  He is reminded that he remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of his discharge.  The applicant can provide additional documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments at that time.  Legal representation at a personal appearance hearing is highly recommended but not required.  Relief denied.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 24, effective 20 May 99 until 26 March 2000, Article 1910-146 (formerly 3630620), Separation by Reason of Misconduct - 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