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

 
ex-ATAN, USN
Docket No. ND03-00625

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20030303.  The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable.  The Applicant requests a personal appearance hearing before the board in the Washington National Capital Region.  The Applicant did not list any representative on the DD Form 293.  In the acknowledgement letter, the Applicant was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20040205.  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 1910-146, formerly Article 3630620.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

1.  “I would like my discharge upgraded to an honorable discharge so that I may re-enlist into the military as a Naval Aviator.  I think it should be upgraded because I was young, immature, and unable to make correct positive decisions for myself.  While attending the Navy I was a very outstanding individual.  I have continued to show exemplary performance since being discharged, shown by documents 1–12.

Documentation

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

Applicant’s DD Form 214 (2)
Georgia Perimeter College official transcripts (2 pages)
Western Michigan University official transcripts (2 pages)
Certificate of Dean’s List award, dated April 27, 2002
Current FAA medical and pilot certificates and ratings
Criminal record report from Kalamazoo County, dated January 2, 2003
Letter of recommendation for scholarship, dated December 9, 2002
Character reference, dated January 20, 2003
Character reference, dated January 23, 2003
Character reference, dated January 14, 2003
Character reference from Applicant’s mother, dated January 14, 2003
Character reference from Applicant’s father, dated January 14, 2003
Letter from Director, Sindecuse Health Center, dated February 24, 2003
Letter from Applicant, dated July 8, 2003
Letter of commendation, dated August 26, 1999
Certificate of completion, dated January 22, 1999
Letter of appreciation, January 21, 1999
Citation re: Honor student, dated January 21, 1999
Honor certificate, dated January 22, 1999
Authorization for advancement, dated January 22, 1999
Recommendation for accelerated advancement program, January 20, 1999
Letter of appreciation, dated January 5, 1999
Enlisted Performance Evaluation, dated January 15, 1999

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	980623 - 980629	COG
	Active:   None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  980630		Date of Discharge:  990930

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    01  03  01
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  84

Highest Rate:  ATAN

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.00 (1)	Behavior:  1.00 (1)		OTA:  3.00

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  None

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

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:

990608:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 111: Drunken or reckless operation of vehicle.
	Award: Forfeiture of $537 per month for 2 months, restriction for 60 days, reduction to ATAA.  Reduction suspended for 6 months. No indication of appeal in the record.

990608:	Retention Warning:  Advised of deficiency (NJP on 990608.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning. 

990915:	Medical page entry: 23: Applicant being discharged under a general discharge for 112A and 86.

990930:	DD Form 214: Applicant discharged general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-146.

DISCHARGE PACKAGE MISSING

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19990930 with a characterization of general (under honorable conditions) for misconduct due to drug abuse (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:  Normally, to permit relief, an error or injustice must have existed during the period of enlistment in question.  No such error or injustice occurred during the Applicant’s enlistment.  While he may feel that his youth and immaturity were contributing factors, they do not mitigate the Applicant’s disobedience of the orders and directives that regulate good order and discipline in the naval service, demonstrating he was unsuitable for further service.  His service record is marred by illegal drug use.  Additionally, 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.  However, 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 during the processing of a formal application for enlistment through a recruiter.  Relief is therefore 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.   At this time, the Board determined that the documentation submitted by the Applicant does not 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 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