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

ex-MM1, USN
Docket No. ND02-01169

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 020814, 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 030515.  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

The discharge was improper due to a 13 yr. old NJP that was objected to by respondent.  Prior drug use was irrelevant and prejudicial due to the incident being so old. 

The characterization of discharge was given without taking into account of my 18 years of good service.  

The discharge was improper because the preponderance of the evidence did not support a finding that I would have felt the effects of amphetamine or methamphetamine.  

Documentation

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

Copy of DD Form 214
       Applicant’s service record (59 pages)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	820623 - 830608	COG
	Active:   USN			830609 - 970605	HON

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  970606		Date of Discharge:  010830

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    04  02  25
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  32			Years Contracted:  6 

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  80

Highest Rate:  MM1

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  4.00 (4)	Behavior:  3.00 (4)		OTA:  3.50

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  SSDR (6), NUC(2), AFEM (4), NDSM, SASM, MUC, NAM, Navy “E” (5), GCM (3)

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:

010216:	NAVDRUGLAB San Diego, CA:  Urine sample received 13FEB01, resulted in positive for amphetamine/methamphetamine.

010406:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.

010406:	Applicant advised of his rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge Board.

010530:	An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence and by unanimous vote, found that the Applicant had committed misconduct due to drug abuse, that the misconduct warranted separation, and recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions.

010702:	Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse (use).  Commanding Officer’s comments (verbatim):  [I have reviewed MM1 S_ (Applicant’s) administrative separation package, supporting documents, and the letter of deficiency submitted by his Counsel.  I concur with the administrative board’s findings that there is substantial evidence of misconduct due to drug abuse.  The urinalysis test results evidence MM1 S_ (Applicant’) drug use, and is sufficient, absent evidence to the contrary, to prove wrongful use.  MM1 S_ (Applicant’s) conduct has demonstrated his blatant disregard for Navy policy and regulation.  His conduct is a significant departure from the conduct expected of member of the naval service.  I concur with the administrative board’s recommendation that MM1 S_ (Applicant) be separated from the naval service with an other than honorable characterization of discharge.]

010714:	BUPERS directed the applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse (use).

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 010830 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).

The Applicant states his characterization was given without taking into account his 18 years of good service.   The Board agrees the Applicant has average evaluations throughout his tenure in the Navy, but his performance prior to the drug abuse doesn’t mitigate his use of illegal drugs.  Drug abuse warranted processing for separation, normally under Other than Honorable conditions.  The discharge was proper and equitable.  Furthermore, there is no evidence the command was not fair and impartial during the Applicant’s separation proceedings.  The proceedings were reviewed and found sufficient in law and fact.  Relief denied.  However, the NDRB did note an administrative error on the original DD Form 214 and corrected it to reflect the Applicant’s previous fourteen years of honorable service

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. At this time, the Applicant has not provided sufficient verifiable documentation of good character and conduct to mitigate his misconduct while on active duty.  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 33, effective 16 Jul 2001 until 21 Aug 2002, 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