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

 ex-DC3, USN
Docket No. ND02-00074

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 011012, 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 19 June 2002.  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: GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-146, formerly Article 3630620.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

1.  I received a navy achievement medal from every captain I had served under.
2.  My evals were always superior above 4.0 (early promotion).
3.  Received good conduct medal.
4.  I was eligible to take E-6 exam early.
5.  Made one mistake during my enlistment I was never in trouble.
6.  Served original obligation of 4 yrs extended 1 yr made mistake I regret.
7.  Would like to re-enlist to contribute the knowledge of rate and to continue serving my country.
8.  My qualifications and watch standing quals were always superior w/great responsibilities.
9.  Saved a shipmates life on USS KITTYHAWK listed in medical record.     

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)	951012 - 951217	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  951218		Date of Discharge:  001120

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    04  11  02
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  29			Years Contracted:  4 (13 months extension)

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  63

Highest Rate:  DC2

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  4.00 (3)	Behavior:  4.00 (3)		OTA:  4.14

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NAM (3), SSDR (2), AFEM, GCM

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-146, formerly 3630620.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

000919:	NAVDRUGLAB [SAN DIEGO, CA], reported Applicant’s urine sample, received 000908, tested positive for [Methamphetamine].

000922:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 112a: Wrongful use of a controlled substance, to wit: Methamphetamine.
	Award:  Restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to E-4.  No indication of appeal in the record.

001003:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.

001003:	Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights.

001003:	Substance Abuse Rehabilitation Department (SARD), Point Loma Clinic  Substance Abuse Screening indicates Applicant does not meet diagnostic criteria for alcohol/drug abuse dependency.
 
001011:	Commanding officer recommended discharge general under honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse (use).

001117:	COMNAVSURFPAC SAN DIEGO, CA directed the Applicant's discharge general(under 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 001120 general (under 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).

Issues 1-6, 8 and 9.  The applicant asserts his overall service was always superior and warrants an upgrade to his discharge.  He also asserts this was a one-time incident.  When the service of a member of U.S. Navy has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service as honorable.  A general discharge is appropriate when significant negative aspects of a member's conduct or performance of duty outweigh the positive aspects of the member's military record.  A one-time incident can serve to significantly outweigh the positive aspects of the member's service.  The applicant’s service was marred by the use of methamphetamines, a controlled substance, in violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Navy's Zero Tolerance Policy.  The applicant’s use of drugs, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflects his willful use of a controlled substance and falls short of that required for an upgrade of his characterization of service.  Relief is not warranted.

Issue 7.  The applicant requests to re-enlist and to serve the U.S. under his issue 7.  The NDRB has no authority to change reenlistment codes or make recommendations to permit reentry into the naval service or any other of the Armed Forces.  The NDRB has no jurisdiction over reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Navy or Marine Corps.  For the Navy, the Chief of Naval Personnel promulgates the reenlistment policy.  A request for a waiver is normally done only during the processing of a formal application for enlistment through a recruiter.  Relief, on this basis is therefore, denied. 

The following is provided for the applicant’s edification.  The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge.  The applicant must be aware that 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 exist 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 is reminded that he is eligible for a personal appearance hearing provided the application is received within 15 years from the date of discharge.  Representation and documentation of post-service conduct such as letters of recommendation are highly recommended.
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