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

 ex-FCSN, USN
Docket No. ND02-00964

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 020626, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable.  The Applicant requested a personal appearance hearing discharge review before a traveling panel closest to San Diego, CA.  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, D.C. Area.  The Naval Discharge Review Board (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 030331.  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.  My discharge was inequitable because it was based on one alleged isolated incident in 25 months of good service to the Navy.  This discharge has created many hardships in my life and ruined my chances of ever serving the federal government again.  Solid evidence to support my terms of discharge was never produced.

Documentation

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

Applicant Business Card
Letter from Applicant dated July 25, 2002
Reference Letter from E_ R_, President, Ridout Plastic
Letter of Congratulations from P_ H. D_, Publisher of The National Dean's List
Certificate of Academic Excellence (Dean's Honor List)
Certificate of Provisional Membership (2001-2002) 
Evaluation Report & Counseling Record (2 pages)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	970630 - 970722	COG
	Active:   None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  970723		Date of Discharge:  990902

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    02  01  10
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  17			Years Contracted:  4 (24 months extension)

Education Level:  10			AFQT:  Unknown

Highest Rate:  FC3

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.00 (1)	Behavior:  4.00 (1)		OTA:  3.17 (5.0 Evals)

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  Rifle Marksman

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:

990731:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 112A: (2 Specifications), Wrongful use or possession of controlled substance.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $626.00 pay per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to E-3.  No indication of appeal in the record.

NO DISCHARGE PACKAGE AVAILABLE

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 990902 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.  The record of the Applicant’s non-judicial punishment (NJP) is considered credible evidence that the Applicant used illegal drugs.  The Applicant did not provide verifiable documentation that this NJP was inequitable or improper.  Drug abuse warranted processing for separation, normally under other than honorable conditions.  Relief denied.

The Applicant’s discharge characterization accurately reflects his service to his country.  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 24, effective 20 May 99 until 26 March 2000, 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