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

ex-FA, USN
Docket No. ND02-00591

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 020326, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable or 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 030107.  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 3630605.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as submitted

1.  I would like to address the issues of the reason why I was discharged from the Navy, first being my unauthorized 17 day leave from my ship.  I feel I was still extremely immature at that time and did not think about the long term effects of my actions.  I was feeling lonley and that particular weekend I couldn't bear to leave my friends and family.  I know now that I had only lost their respect when I chose them over my duty and my country. The use of marijuana and alcohol under 21 charge was just plain recklessness on my part.  I regret everyday what my immaturity and lonliness has done to my life.  I did soon realize that I had done something terribly wrong and did surrender willingly after only 17 days gone.  I ask you please consider upgrading my discharge so I could serve my city country or government as a good worker and citizen if ever needed to do so.  Thank you for your time and for considering my application for discharge upgrading.

Documentation

In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:

Letter from Applicant's mother dated February 17, 2002
Job/character reference dated February 24, 2001
Character reference from Applicant's wife, dated February 11, 2002
Twelve pages from Applicant's service record

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   None
	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	951219 - 960925	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  960926		Date of Discharge:  970715

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    00  09  20
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  8

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  52

Highest Rate:  FA

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  NMA		Behavior:  NMA		OTA:  NMA

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  AFEM, SSDR

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  17

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630605.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

970626:	NAVDRUGLAB, San Diego, CA, reported Applicant’s urine sample, received 970616, tested positive for THC.

970630:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence from 0700, 26 May 97 to 1340, 12 Jun 97 (17 days/surrendered), violation of UCMJ, Article 87: Missed ship's movement on 1356, 27 May 97, violation of UCMJ, Article 112A: Wrongfully used marijuana on 12 Jun 97, violation of UCMJ, Article 121: Wrongfully appropriated a civilian identification card, of some value on 15 May 97, the property of an unknown male, violation of UCMJ, Article 134: Wrongfully consumed alcoholic beverages, while under the age of 21, on 15 May 97.
	Award: Forfeiture of $450 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days.  No indication of appeal in the record.

970630:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

970630:	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.

970703:	Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense and misconduct due to drug abuse.  Commanding Officer’s comments (verbatim):  [FR R_ (Applicant’s) positive urinalysis renders him unfit for further Naval Service in accordance with the Navy’s zero tolerance policy.  FR R_ (Applicant) is most strongly recommended for separation with characterization of discharge as Other Than Honorable.]

970710:	COMPHIBGRU THREE directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 970715 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (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 may believe that his ability to serve was impaired by his youth and immaturity.  However, the record clearly reflects his disregard for the requirements of military discipline and demonstrated he was unsuited for further service.  Furthermore, 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.  An upgrade to honorable would be inappropriate.  Relief denied.

Issue 2:  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, a positive employment record, documentation of community service, certification of non-involvement with civil authorities and credible evidence that the Applicant is living a drug free life style, are examples of verifiable documents that should be provided to receive consideration for relief, based on post-service conduct.  After a complete review of the entire record, including the evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board determined that the Applicant’s discharge was proper and equitable and that his evidence of post-service accomplishments was found not to mitigate the conduct for which he was discharged.  Relief denied.  

The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of discharge.  The Applicant can provide additional documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments at that time.  Representation at a personal appearance hearing is recommended but not required.  

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 14, effective 
03 Oct 96 until 971212, Article 3630605, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT – COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE.

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