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

 ex-GSE3, USN
Docket No. ND02-00543

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 020318, 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 021206.  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.  Discharged in absentia.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as submitted

1.  My undesirable discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident in 39 months of service, with no other adverse actions against me.  No fair conditions were presented to me for correction, discipline or rehabilitation, and I was led to believe I would be encouraged to complete any disciplinary punishment and be offered an opportunity to re-establish my post, I have had the opportunity to re habilitate my self, secure gainful employment and I submit my strong desire to re-enlist and serve my country in these times of need.

2.  Willingness to cooperate with regional Navy law enforcement personnel.  Princeton security personnel suggested and set-up a meeting with Naval Station San Diego law enforcement officials to implement a plan for me to (1) Identify locations and persons whom I had encountered to be involved in unlawful activity, and (2) to identify and possibly tape record statements of violation of U.S.S. Princeton crew members, whom I had known to be involved with Navy policy drug violations.  Pending outcome of these evolutions it was acknowledged to me by Navy Law Enforcement that I would benefit with their assistance towards my Commanding Officer and he would receive positive reference to my activities.

3.  Relocation to higher living cost region received with difficulty.  My adjustments to these economic conditions resulted in financial drain, which manifested into hardship.  Having a background in an urban, black environment, I mistakenly devised a method, that I had possessed some assumed familiarity with, that I wrongfully believed was a quick and sure-fire way to obtain extra money with a small initial investment of time.  I admit, at that time, I had difficulty discerning between the immediate welfare of my families needs and the risk of my methods to my Navy career.

4.  No conditions were presented to me for rehabilitation and correction. I had served with enthusiasm and honesty for 3 years.  I had incorporated a sense of security in the comfort of the Navy family.  As you well know, anyone who has served onboard a Navy fighting vessel embraces the camaraderie and esprit de corps that close quarters and hard training supplies.  Equipped with these feelings, I deservedly believed I would be encouraged to complete any disciplinary punishment and be offered rehabilitation.  After optimistic success in those areas, I anxiously looked forward to re-establishing my post.

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):

	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	950224 - 950313	COG
	Active:   None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  950314		Date of Discharge:  980615

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    03  03  02
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  32			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  14			AFQT:  64

Highest Rate:  GSE3

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  NMF*		Behavior:  NMF		OTA:  NMF

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NDSM, NER, SSR

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

*No Marks Found in the service record.

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:

980615:	DD Form 214: Applicant discharged under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse (use), authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-146.  Discharged in absentia.

No discharge package in service record.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged, in absentia, on 980615 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.  There is credible evidence in the record that the Applicant used illegal drugs. Only one instance of drug abuse warranted processing for separation, normally under other than honorable conditions.  Relief denied.

Issue 2.  The Applicant failed to provide sufficient documentation to overturn the presumption of regularity regarding his administrative separation proceedings.  Relief denied.

Issue 3.  The Board’s charter limits its review to a determination on the propriety and equity of the discharge.  In the Applicant’s case the Board could discern no impropriety or inequity and therefore considered the Applicant’s discharge was proper and equitable.

Issue 4.  The Applicant’s drug abuse did not necessarily require rehabilitation or corrective actions on his part prior to separation.  The Applicant failed to provide sufficient documentation regarding this issue to overturn the presumption of regularity regarding his administrative separation proceedings.  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.  Neither a less than fully honorable discharge nor an unfavorable “RE” code is, in itself, a bar to reenlistment.  A request for waiver is normally done only during the processing of a formal application for enlistment through a recruiter.  Relief is therefore 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 inequity must have existed during the period of enlistment in question.  No such error or inequity is evident 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.  The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 18, effective 12 Dec 97 to 19 May 99, 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 "afls14.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