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

 ex-OSSA, USN
Docket No. ND01-01005

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 010730, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions.  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 020221.  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 - 142 (formerly 3630605).

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

1.  Example 1.

My discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident 28 months of service with no other adverse action. I was U/A for a 4 day period.  Upon checking in w/command I was accused of smoking marijuana with another shipmate during the 4 day absence.  I was deploying within 7 days for 6 months deployment.  I had just made E-4, with 18 months of U.S. Navy service left to serve.  I was hoping a career with the military.  I think the first time U/A should not have discharged me.  I thank you I wish to state I did not smoke marijuana during my 4 day absence my urine will prove my point.  I believe false charge were put on me and my young navy career.  My early statements are false during the initial case I could not believe the wicked statements threw on me.  I went before the captain not even knowing what exactly would happen to me.  Before long I was discharged.  My career ended within a blink of an eye, please 18 months left of service with an honorable discharge then I was planing to transfer branch of service.  My 28 months I made E-4, medals, an going on my 2 deployment.

Documentation

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

None.

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   USN 		None
	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	980114 - 980301	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  980302		Date of Discharge:  000906

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    02  06  01
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  20			Years Contracted:  4 

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  54

Highest Rate:  OS3

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  2.33 (3)	Behavior:  2.33 (3)		OTA:  2.16 (5.O Evals)

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  AFEM, SSDR, NAVY"E"RIBBON 

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  4 

Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance):

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-142 (formerly 3630605).

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

000810:	Applicant diagnosed with Borderline Personality Disorder.  The psychiatrist recommended separation based on a personality disorder of such severity as to render the applicant incapable of serving adequately in the naval service.  Applicant was considered a continuing risk of harm to self or others.

000811:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Absent without leave 000803-000807 [4days/R]; violation of UCMJ Article 87: Missing Movement; violation of UCMJ Article 112a: Wrongful use of a controlled substance {SELF ADMITTED TO MARIJUANA USE; EXTRACTED FROM MEDICAL RECORD}  
	Award:  Forfeiture of $563.00 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to E-2.  No indication of appeal in the record.

000811:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

000811:	Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights.

000811:	Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense. 

000823:	COMPHIBGRU THREE 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 000906 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (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 applicant implies that a permissive doctrine exists whereby one in the military is allowed a “single misdeed”.  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.  Missing movement constitutes the commission of a serious offense.  In addition, even one use of an illegal drug while on active duty is cause for administrative separation, normally under other than honorable conditions.  The Board found no evidence that the applicant’s nonjudicial punishment received on 000811 was improper or unfair.  Relief denied.

The applicant’s discharge characterization accurately reflects his service to his country.  The discharge was proper and equitable.  Normally, to permit relief, an error or injustice must have existed during the period of enlistment in question.  No such error or injustice occurred during the applicant’s enlistment.  Additionally, 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 civilian life, subsequent to leaving the service.  However, the NDRB is authorized to consider outstanding post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge, 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.  Verifiable proof of any post-service accomplishments must be provided in order for the applicant to claim post-service conduct and behavior as a reason to upgrade a less than Honorable discharge.  Evidence of continuing educational pursuits, an employment record, documentation of community service, certification of non-involvement with civil authorities and proof of his not using drugs, are examples of verifiable documents that should have been provided to receive consideration for relief, based on post-service conduct.  The applicant did not provide sufficient documentation to warrant an upgrade to his discharge.  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.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 30, dated 7 Nov 00, effective 30 Aug 00 until 24 Jan 01, Article 1910-142  [formerly 3630605]. SEPARATION BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT - COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE.

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