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

 ex-FCSN, USN
Docket No. ND02-00313

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 020128, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable.  The applicant requested a personal appearance discharge review before a traveling panel.  The applicant did not list any representative on the DD Form 293.  In the acknowledgement letter to the applicant, he was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) does not travel; all hearings are held in the Washington, DC area.  The NDRB also advised that the board first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 020829.  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 HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL)/Misconduct – Drug abuse (Use), authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630620.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as submitted

Renumbered

1.  I made a mistake over ten years ago, which resulted in my discharge from the Navy.  I want you to know & understand that I realize that my behavior was unacceptable, but I can assure you that aging has matured me.  I'm now married, the father of four children, and would love to join the Navy Reserves.  I feel that I would be an asset to the military & my country in this time of need - I can assure & guarantee that I will never commit an unlawful act again.  I will uphold all military Regulations & be committed to the US Navy.  Thank you, and please consider updating my discharge.

2.  The discharge was inequitable because it was based on an isolated incident (which I believe I was set up deliberately), in a four year period of service with no other adverse action.

3.  I received a Certificate of Appreciation, Iron Man Medal, Two letters of Recommendation and other various medals and awards during my four year period of service in the Navy.

4.  I was only 23 years old at the time of discharge, and am now 34 years old, in fantastic shape, married with four children, and have a very large desire to enter the Navy Reserves.

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:   USNR		860220 - 890105	HON
	Inactive: USNR		851008 - 860219	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  890106		Date of Discharge:  900308

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    01  02  03
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  19			Years Contracted:  6

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  49

Highest Rate:  FC3

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.50 (2)	Behavior:  3.40 (2)		OTA:  3.40

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  None

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

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

UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL)/Misconduct – Drug abuse (Use), authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630620.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

891102:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 112a: Wrongfully use LSD on 5 Sep 89.
	Award: Forfeiture of $400 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to FCSN.  No indication of appeal in the record.

891103:	Drug and Alcohol Abuse Report: LSD abuse, ashore off duty.  Abuse denied.  Random urinalysis, 890905.  Physician found applicant not dependent and recommended separation via VA hospital.  Commanding Officer recommended separation not via VA hospital. Comments: Past military performance was above average.  Adjudged as having no potential for future naval service.

891103:	Medical evaluation for drug abuse found the applicant to be a drug abuser, not alcohol/drug dependent.  

891106:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.

891108:	Applicant advised of his rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge Board.

900202:	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 recommended discharge under honorable conditions (general).

900215:	Commanding Officer, Fleet Training Center, San Diego, CA recommended discharge under honorable conditions (general) by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse (use). 

900227:	CNMPC directed the applicant's discharge under honorable conditions (general) by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse (use).

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 900308 under honorable conditions (general) 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 1-3.  The applicant states his discharge was based on one isolated incident in four years of service, during which he received several decorations and awards, with no other infractions.  There is credible evidence in the record that the applicant used illegal drugs. Despite the applicant’s service record prior to his NJP, drug abuse warranted processing for separation, normally under other than honorable conditions.  The discharge was proper and equitable.  Relief denied.
  
Issue 4.  While he may feel that his age at the time was a factor that contributed to his actions, 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 NDRB has no authority to change reenlistment codes or make recommendations to permit reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Naval Service or any other branch of the Armed Forces.  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.  Relief not warranted.

The applicant 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.  Representation at a personal appearance hearing is recommended but not required.  

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Navy Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560A), Change 6, effective 11 Jan 89 until 13 Jun 90, 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