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

  -DCFA, USN
Docket No. ND03-00333

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20021219.  The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review.  The Applicant did not list any representative on the DD Form 293.  Subsequent to the application, the Applicant obtained representation from the Disabled American Veterans.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20031121.  After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the Applicant’s service was discovered by the NDRB.  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 3630620.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

1.  “--In addition to request for upgrade of discharge, I request upgrade/change of Reenlistment Code, from RE-4 to RE-1.  It is my fervent desire to re-enlist in the U.S. Armed Forces.”

2.  “--At the time of my discharge from the U.S. Navy, I was immature (especially compared to my level of maturity today).  I made some comments that were not true regarding my character/behavior, but they led to my discharge under conditions and re-enlistment code given.”

Additional issues submitted by Applicant’s representative (Disabled American Veterans):

3.  “After a review of the Former Service Members (FSM) DD Form 293 Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States and all of  evidence assembled for review, we continue to note the contention of the appellant in his request for a discharge upgrade of his current General Under Honorable Conditions Discharge to an Honorable Discharge.

The FSM served on active service from June 7, 1994 to May 16, 1995 at which time he was discharged due to misconduct. 

In continuance, the FSM goes onto explain that the problem with his active duty were not derived from conduct, but from immaturity. The same immaturity also caused in-appropriate statements which ultimately lead to his Administrative Discharge. The FSM maintains that although the discharge may have been appropriate at that time, it is currently inequitable and requires relief.

In support of this claim and the level of character of the FSM, submitted statements from the Applicant’s step-father and the Mayor of his home town attest the current character of the FSM and support the conclusion of mature growth.

We ask for the Board’s careful and sympathetic consideration of all the evidence of record used in rendering a fair and impartial decision.  These issues do not supersede any issues previously submitted by the Applicant.”  

Documentation

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

Applicant’s DD Form 214
Letter from Applicant, dated September 8, 2002
Character reference, dated September 4, 2002
Letter from Mayor, City of Amarillo, Texas, dated September 6, 2002
Ten pages from Applicant’s service record

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	940218 - 940606	COG
	Active:   None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  940607		Date of Discharge:  950516

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    00  11  10
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  19			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  56

Highest Rate:  DCFA

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.30 (2)	Behavior:  3.30 (2)		OTA:  3.50

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NDSM

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630620.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

950516:	DD Form 214: Applicant discharged general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse (use), authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630620.

Applicant’s discharge package missing from service record.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19950516 with a general (under 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.  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 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.  

Issue 2.  The Applicant contends his problems in the Navy were due to his immaturity.  While the Applicant’s service record is incomplete and does not contain the discharge documents, mandatory processing for separation is required for sailors who abuse illegal drugs and separation under these conditions generally results in characterization of service “under other than honorable conditions.”  The evidence of record did not show that the Applicant was either not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions.  The Board will not recharacterize a former member’s discharge because he realizes he made mistakes while serving his country.  The Board will only change a discharge if the issuance is determined to have been inequitable or improper.  The Board found that the Applicant’s service was equitably characterized.  Relief denied.

Issue 3.  The NDRB is authorized, however, to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review.  Examples of documentation that should be provided to the Board include proof of educational pursuits, verifiable employment records, documentation of community service, certification of non-involvement with civil authorities, and credible evidence of a substance free lifestyle (if appropriate).  

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.  Navy Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 9/94, effective 
22 Jul 94 until 02 Oct 96, Article 3630620, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED MEMBERS BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT DUE TO 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