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

  ex-BTFA, USN
Docket No. ND03-00451

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20030124.  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. In the acknowledgement letter the applicant was informed that he was approaching the 15 year point for review by this Board and was encouraged to attend a personal appearance hearing in the Washington, D.C. area.  Applicant advised the Board that he was unable to take time off to come to Washington DC for a personal appearance.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20031229.  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: UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL)/Misconduct – commission of a serious offense, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

No issues were submitted by the Applicant. 

Documentation

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

None

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	860428 - 860616	COG
	Active:   None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  860616			Date of Discharge:  890228

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    02  08  13
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  17 Parental Consent 		Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12				AFQT:  36

Highest Rate:  BTFA

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.73 (3)			Behavior:  3.33 (3)		OTA:  3.73

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  SSDR, AFEM

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  32

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

UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL)/Misconduct – commission of a serious offense, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

870802:	Applicant to unauthorized absence 0730, 870802.

870902:	Applicant declared a deserter.

870904:	Applicant from unauthorized absence 2052, 870904 (32 days/surrendered).

870911:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence from unit, violation of UCMJ, Article 87: Missing ship’s movement.
	Award: Forfeiture of $150 per month for 1 month, restriction for 60 days, reduction to BTFR.  No indication of appeal in the record.

881020:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse and misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

881027:	Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights except the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation and submit a written statement.

881028:	Applicant waived right to submit written statement.

881109:	Medical evaluation for drug abuse found the Applicant to be a drug abuser, not drug dependent.  

881202:	Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse and misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.  Commanding Officer’s comments (verbatim):  [BTFA R_ (Applicant) has flagrantly violated the Navy’s “zero tolerance” policy.  Three times he has submitted urine samples, resulting in a positive reading for THC.  All of these samples were command directed and therefore not punishable by nonjudicial punishment the following are the dates, the type of screening and substance found per sample:

	   DATE                           TYPE	SUBSTANCE DETECTED
	04 SEP 87	Command directed	THC
	23 AUG 88	Command directed	THC
	21 SEP 88	Command directed	THC

	BTFA R_’s (Applicant’s) commission of a serious offense missing ship’s movement, occurred when he began an unauthorized absence on 02 August 1987.  He then missed ship’s movement on 03 August 1987 and remained absent until 04 September 1987.
	BTFA R_ (Applicant) has been examined by the ship’s Medical Officer and found not to be drug dependant 
	BTFA R_ (Applicant)is a good worker and currently not an administrative burden.  The fact that he has, however, produced three positive urinalysises and committed a serious offense, terminates his potential for future Naval service.  In view of the forgoing, I strongly recommend that BTFA R_ (Applicant) be discharged from the U.S. Navy.  Further, I recommend that the characterization of that discharge be under Other Than Honorable conditions.]

890220:	CNMPC directed the Applicant's discharge under honorable conditions (general) by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19890228 under honorable conditions (general) for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (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 did not introduce any decisional issues for the Board’s consideration.  A characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions is warranted when the member’s conduct constitutes a significant departure from that expected of a Sailor.  The Applicant’s service was marred by illegal drug use and unauthorized absence.  The Applicant’s conduct, falls short of that required for an honorable characterization of service.  An upgrade to honorable would be inappropriate.  Relief denied.  

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, a drug-free lifestyle, and certification of community service and non-involvement with civil authorities are examples of verifiable proof that can be submitted.   

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560A), Change 6, effective 
11 Jan 89 until 24 May 89, Article 3630600, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT – COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE.

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