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

 ex-OS3, USN
Docket No. ND02-01126

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 020809, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable.  The Applicant requested a documentary record discharge review.  The Applicant did not designate a representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 030424.  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: GENERAL (UNDER 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 the decision was based soley on one isolated incident in 50 months of service with no other adverse action.

2.	My discharge has had a very crucial impact on my life and my livelihood.

3.   Letter of recommendation from my former LPO.

ISSUE 1
IN MY 58 MONTHS OF SERVICE AND BEFORE MY ENLISTMENT BEGAN, I HAVE UNDERGONE SEVERAL DRUG TEST AND HAVE NEVER TESTED POSITIVE.  DRUGS HAVE NEVER BEEN APART OF MY LIFE AND WILL NEVER BE.  FOR ONE MISTAKE IN JUDGEMENT, I LOST MY LIVELIHOOD.  BECAUSE OF MY DISCHARGE, I AM NOT ABLE TO SEEK EMPLOYMENT WITH MANY AGENCIES THAT REQUIRE MY DISCHARGE TO BE OF A DIFFERENT STATUS.

ISSUE 2
MY MILITARY CAREER REALLY MEANT ALOT TO ME.  ACTUALLY, IT STILL DOES MEAN ALOT TO ME.  THERE IS NOT A DAY THAT GOES BY THAT I DON'T SIT BACK AND WISH THAT IT WAS STILL APART OF MY LIFE.  IN ALMOST 5 YEARS, I WENT FROM El TO E5 AND HAD PLANS OF GOING EVEN HIGHER.  ONE IMPAIRMENT IN MY JUDGEMENT MESSED THAT UP FOR ME.  I CHOSE TO HANG WITH A DIFFERENT CREW OF PEOPLE THAT I REALLY DIDN'T KNOW MUCH OF ANYTHING ABOUT AND WENT TO A PARTY, ASKED SOMEONE FOR A CIGARETTE, TOOK A FEW PUFFS AND WHEN I QUESTIONED THE SMELL AND TASTE, WAS TOLD IT WS LACED WITH MARAJUANA AND I IMMEDIATELY LEFT THE PARTY.  I DID NOT THINK TO BRING IT TO THE ATTENTION OF MY LPO, BECAUSE IT WAS ONLY A FEW PUFFS AND I DID NOT THINK IT WOULD HAVE ANY AFFECT IN MY SYSTEM.  UNFORTUNATELY, I WAS WRONG WHEN A FEW DAYS AFTERWARD THERE WAS A MANDATORY DRUG SCREENING FOR THE SHIP.  WHEN GIVEN THE RESULTS AND INFORMED OF MY OPTIONS, OF COURSE I TRIED TO APPEAL IT AND PLEAD MY CASE, BUT I WAS NOT HEARD.  MY LPO AND ANOTHER OS SPOKE IN MY BEHALF, BUT THAT WAS NOT GOOD ENOUGH.  MY CAREER WITH THE US NAVY WAS OVER, JUST LIKE THAT.  NO ONE WAS WILLING TO GIVE ME A SECOND CHANCE.  I HAD NEVER BEEN IN ANY TROUBLE AND RECEIVED NUMEROUS AWARDS BECAUSE OF MY SUPERIOR JOB PERFORMANCE.  MY SERVICE RECORD SHOULD REFLECT THIS.  AND WHEN ALL WAS SAID AND DONE, TO BE GIVEN A GENERAL DISCHARGE, WAS A SLAP IN THE FACE.  AFTER ALL OF MY HARD WORK AND DEDICATION, THAT'S HOW I WAS TREATED.  I'VE APPLIED FOR VARIOUS JOBS; POLICE DEPT., STATE TROOPER, ETC., AND MY DISCHARGE HAS PREVENTED ME FROM AQUIRING A POSITION WITH THESE DEPARTMENTS.  PLEASE RECONSIDER YOUR POSITION AND UPGRADE MY DISCHARGE.  IT IS TOO LATE TO TURN BACK, BUT NEVER TOO LATE TO MOVE FOWARD AND THAT IS WHAT I PLAN ON ACHIEVING.  PLEASE GIVE ME A CHANCE TO ACHIEVE.  IF I COULD GO BACK INTO THE MILITARY AND STILL HAVE MY RANK, I WOULD.  THIS IS JUST HOW MUCH IT TRULY MEANT TO ME.  THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.

Documentation

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

Character Reference letter from D_ P_, OSC(SW), USN, dtd July 12, 2002

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	950222 - 950607*	COG
	Active:   USN			950608 - 990929*	HON

*Cannot verify, initial enlistment contract is not contained in service record.

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  990930		Date of Discharge:  000428

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    00  06  29
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  22			Years Contracted:  6

Education Level:  12**		AFQT:  32

Highest Rate:  OS2

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  NMF***	Behavior:  NMF***		OTA:  NMF***

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  AFEM, GCM, NDSM, NUC, Navy "E" Efficiency Ribbon, SSDR (w/Bronze Star)

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

** Cannot verify, document not in service record.
***No Marks Found in service record.

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-146, formerly 3630620.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

[ADMIN DISCHARGE PACKAGE NOT CONTAINED IN SERVICE RECORD, AND APPLICANT DID NOT PROVIDE.]

990930:	Reenlisted for 6 years on-board USS HALYBURTON (FFG-40) at Norfolk, VA.

000211:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 112A:  Wrongful use, possession of a controlled substance.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $749 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to E-4.  No indication of appeal in the record.

000428:	Applicant discharged under honorable conditions (general) by reason of misconduct.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 000428 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, 1-2.  There is credible evidence in the record that the Applicant used illegal drugs.  Even one instance of drug abuse warranted processing for separation, normally under other than honorable conditions.  The Board found that the positive aspects of the Applicant’s record resulted in a discharge under honorable conditions (general), vice under other than honorable conditions.  Relief 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, hardship, to enhance employment opportunities, or for good conduct in civilian life, subsequent to leaving the service.  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 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 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