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

 ex-SR, USNR
Docket No. ND02-00685

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 020418, 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 030116.  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.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as submitted

1.  To: Naval council of personnel board members

I (Applicant) former sailor assigned to USS TORTUGA LSD (46), station out of Little Creek, VA from Jan. 2000 to Aug. 2000.  I respectfully request a review of my discharge papers.  In Jun. of 1999 from the recruiting station in East Orange, New Jersey, I signed a contract with the Navy for SN APPRENTICESHIP program.  Which was supposed to be an electronic program, however. The Navy did not place me in the program.  Instead, I was placed into a two-week Boatswain’s mate program.  Which was a clear violation of the contractual agreement.  I discovered an error after reviewing my documents at NAVAL TRAINING CENTER.  I was assigned to training units not consistent with my contract under training.  To the best of my knowledge, I was not allowed to appeal to anyone about reviewing my records.  Also instead, of getting a contractual signing bonus for storing 50 percent on my asvab.  I received 0 bonus also duty assignments unfound.  These events created major problems for my Navy career.

Eleven months later in the month of July, my naval misconduct begun.  I was placed before a Navel hearing for an alleged violation of the UCMJ.  To the best of my knowledge, I was charged with misconduct which evidence was unfound.  However as a new recruit who served I I months of a three year term.  The crew aboard the USS TORTUGA found it necessary to protect their careers by agreeing to testify, against me at my hearing.  As a result this act ended my Navel career with a thirty day detention, reduced in rank. and zero fine.  As a 18 year old out of high school, I'm not making excuses for my misconduct in the USN.  I take full responsibility for my alleged actions which was unfound.  I agreed with Navy officials to sign discharge papers not cleared to me.  All, I knew they were the papers that allowed me to return home.  After six months to a year.  I assumed those papers would be reversed.  And as a mature adult one year later, I would be able to re-enter the military with an expectable code to re-enter.  I placed a request for my DD214.  Finally one year later.  I received my DD214 Discharge with no change.

In conclusion, I respectfully request my RE-4 code other than honorable discharge, to be reversed to an acceptable discharge.  In order to re-enlist in the worlds finest military.  Also to continue a civilian life in today' society.  I understand the board is busy in it's not a easy position.  However, I hope you give this issue your fullest attention because my military and civilian careers depend on it.  I take great pride in writing your fine branch USN.

CC:  Senator R_ T_
CC:  Senator J_ S_ C_
CC:  Congressman D_ P_

Sincerely,
Former Sailor

Documentation

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

Applicant's DD Form 214

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: None
	Active:   None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  990730		Date of Discharge:  000627

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    00  10  23
	Inactive:  00  00  06

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  8

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  50

Highest Rate:  SA

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  1.00 (1)	Behavior:  1.00 (1)		OTA:  1.00

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 OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-146, formerly 3630620.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

000606:	Summary Court-Martial.
	Charge I: violation of the UCMJ, Article 81:
	Specification: Conspiracy.
	Charge II: violation of the UCMJ, Article 112A:
	Specification: Wrongful introduction and distribution of marijuana onto a naval vessel.
	Charge III: violation of the UCMJ, Article 128:
	Specification: Assault consummated by a battery.
	Finding: to Charge I, II and III and the specifications thereunder, guilty.
	Sentence: Forfeiture of $400.00, confinement for 30 days, reduced to SR.
	CA action 000606: Sentence approved and ordered executed.

000626:	Applicant released from confinement.

000627:	DD Form 214:  Applicant discharged under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse (use), authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-146.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 000627 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 no evidence in the Applicant’s enlistment documents to support his claim that he was guaranteed specialized electronics training.  Furthermore, the Applicant was found guilty by a Summary Court-Martial for violations of the UCMJ to include, conspiracy, wrongful introduction and distribution of marijuana onto a naval vessel and assault consummated by battery.  Drug abuse (use) alone warranted processing for separation, normally under other than honorable conditions.  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.  The Applicant did not provide any certifiable documentation to refute the evidence found in his official record.  Relief denied.

Issue 2:  Concerning a change in reenlistment code, 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.

Issue 3:  The Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment opportunities.  Regulations limit the Board’s 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.  Relief denied.

Issue 4:  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.  The Applicant did not provide any credible post-service documentation for the Board to review.  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.  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 "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