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

 ex-HA, USN
Docket No. ND02-00057

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 011002, 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 020517.  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 3630620.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

1.  To: Navy Discharge Review Board, I am honorably requesting an upgrade in my discharge status.  I received an Other Than Honorable discharge in May 1995.  I would like to have my DD214 upgraded to an Honorable Discharge.  I am requesting a records review. As you will see from my excellent record, that I was discharged only upon a one time incident.  I received Navy Leagues Most Outstanding Recruit of Company 1044 in Orlando on March 3 1994.  I was also color guard at Hospital Corps School, Great Lakes IL.  I was stationed here at the Navy Hospital on the best ward in the hospital.  I am greatly sorry for the way everything turned out.  I loved being in the Military and would someday like to be employed as a civilian for the military or government.  That one incident hinged on my short first marriage at the time of the incident.  I was in a very abusive marriage, both mentally and physically.  We divorced soon after, with finality in March 1996. I am now happily married to my husband and we have 2 children together, 2-year-old daughter and a 3-year-old son.  I have since then gotten my AS Science degree in Computer Networking Technology.  My husband and I are local business owners and I am looking for a career in Information Technology.  I have been asked for my DD214 on several occasions in applying for employment.  I some day soon would like to even apply here on base with NAS.  I know that an OTH is looked down upon and I was told when I was discharged that I would have no problem in having it upgraded.  I know that the present OTH status will affect the future of my professional life, therefore affecting the lives of my husband and my children. I thank you for your time and we are waiting to here a positive response from you.   Sincerely,

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:   None
	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	930726 - 940103	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  940104		Date of Discharge:  950524

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    01  04  21
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  22			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  14			AFQT:  74

Highest Rate:  HN

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.70 (2)	Behavior:  3.40 (2)		OTA:  3.80

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  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:

940109:	Applicant briefed on Navy's policy on drug and alcohol abuse.

950125:	NAVDRUGLAB, Jacksonville, FL reported applicant's urine sample, received 950117, tested positive for amphetamine/methamphetamine.

950202:	Drug and Alcohol Abuse Report: Amphetamine abuse, 950109, less than monthly.  Random urinalysis.  CAAC recommended separate.  Commanding officer recommended separate.  Comments: Member supervisor input was outstanding.  Considered to have no excellent potential for further service.  Urinalysis positive for amphetamines.  CAAC, DAPA, and C.O. recommend administrative separation.

950302:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 112A: Wrongfully use an unknown amount of amphetamine/methamphetamine on or about 9Jan95 to 12Jan95.
	Award: Forfeiture of $428 per month for 2 months, extra duty for 45 days, reduction to HA.  No indication of appeal in the record.

950307:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse as evidenced by your positive urinalysis for amphetamine/methamphetamine and subsequent nonjudicial punishment on 2 March 1995.

950309:	Applicant advised of his rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge Board.

950328:	An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence and by unanimous vote, found that the applicant had committed misconduct due to drug abuse, that the misconduct warranted separation, and by a vote of 2 to 1, recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions.

950426:	Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse (use).

950511:	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 950524 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 applicant states her discharge was based on one incident, and that her abusive marriage contributed to her actions.  The applicant used illegal drugs. Despite the applicant’s excellent performance evaluations, her drug abuse warranted processing for separation, normally under other than honorable conditions.  The discharge was proper and equitable.  Relief denied.

The applicant’s discharge characterization accurately reflects her service to her 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 her 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 her discharge.  She is reminded that she remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of her 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.  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