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

 ex-AR, USN
Docket No. ND01-01076

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 010814, 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 designate a representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 020419.  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.  First of all let me make it perfectly clear that I am not disputing the fact that I made a mistake; however, I am submitting this application because of prior circumstances that lead to my discharge.  My "so-called" friend, C_ and I, had leased an apartment off base, not long after I went AWOL and realized how stupid I was.  I made it back to Norfolk to take my punishment and finish my naval career.  I wanted to stay in the Navy.  Somebody, probably my roommate's girlfriend, had stolen his car.  He had accused me & had filed charges on me.  He even went so far as to call my parents and demand that they tell me where I was.  I was innocent of this accusation. I was arrested & put in jail because of this and missed (couldn't report) for ships movement.  The police never could locate C_ and he never showed up.  I was released from jail and all charges were dropped.  The rest is a matter of history with the Navy. We all make mistakes but not all of us have their lives ruined because of a false accusation.  Because of this false accusation, and the circumstances/events that followed, I was forced into a position beyond my control which led to my discharge from the Navy. Please reconsider my OTH classification so that I can get on with my life and regain some of my self-dignity!

Documentation

Only the service and medical records were reviewed, as the applicant did not provide additional documentation for the Board to consider.

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   None
	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	990614 - 990629	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  990630		Date of Discharge:  001130

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    01  05  01 (Doesn't exclude lost time)
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  4 

Education Level:  GED		AFQT:  50

Highest Rate:  AR

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  2.0 (1)	Behavior:  1.0 (1)		OTA:  1.83 (5.0 eval)

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  None

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  161 [EXTRACTED FROM DD FORM 214]

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:

000217:	Unauthorized absence from USS GEORGE WASHINGTON (CVN 73).

000608:	Surrendered on board USS GEORGE WASHINGTON (CVN 73) AT 1200 this date  (109 days).

000609:	Unauthorized absence from USS GEORGE WASHINGTON (CVN 73) at Norfolk, VA since 0700.  Apprehended by Norfolk Police Department 0700, 00JUN09 for civilian charges, retained onboard Transient Personnel Unit Norfolk for disciplinary action/disposition.  

000802:	Civilian charges dismissed due to failure to prosecute (witness not in court to prosecute case).

000803:	Restored to full duty status at 1300. 

001002:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (3 specs):
Specification 1:  unauthorized absence on or about 17 Feb 2000 from the USS GEORGE WASHINGTON, located at Naval Station Norfolk and remained absence until on or about 8 Jun 2000.
Specification 2: unauthorized absence on or about 0715, 8 Aug 2000 from the Transient Personnel Unit, located at Naval Station Norfolk and remained absence until on or about 0800, 7 Sep 2000.
Specification 3: on or about 25 Sep 2000, without authority, fail to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty, to wit: Sewells Point Branch Medical Clinic. Violation of UCMJ, Article 112a:  wrongful use of controlled substance - marijuana.
Award:  Forfeiture of $100 per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duty for 30 days.  No indication of appeal in the record.

001112:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason misconduct due to commission of a serious offense and misconduct due to drug abuse.

001012:	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.

001019:	Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense and misconduct due to drug abuse (use).

001023:	Prior to discharge, applicant was offered but declined Level III treatment via ARC, due to alcohol/drug dependence.

001023:	Applicant issued an exclusion letter which places the naval base off-limits to him.

001025:	Commander, Navy Region, Mid-Atlantic, Norfolk, VA 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 001130 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 issue of being falsely accused of stealing a car was not pertinent to the offenses of desertion during the period of February-June 2000 or illegal drug use.  The record clearly reflects his willful disregard for the requirements of military discipline and demonstrated that he was unfit for further service.  The record is devoid of evidence that the applicant was not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions.  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.  The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 27, effective 27 March 2000 - 11 Feb 2001, 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