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

 
ex-EMC, USN
Docket No. ND03-01108

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20030616.  The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions.  The Applicant requests a documentary record 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 20040504.  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 OTHER THAN 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.  “When I joined the Navy on May 5, 1982, I never looked back.  I was looking for a career with a great organization and I found it in the United States Navy.
After completing “A” school at Great Lakes, I was transferred to San Diego for Shore Duty at the submarine base at Point Loma.  Most of my time was spent with base security, which I really enjoyed.  Prior to being transferred I was promoted to E-4.  My next duty station was just as enjoyable as the first one.
I was transferred to the U.S.S.  Okinawa.  This was the ship on which I learned to become a great electrician.  I learned to work on equipment ranging from aircraft elevators to galley equipment.  I made a few West-Pac tours on the Okinawa and made two trips to the Persian Gulf on mine sweeping operations.  During my second trip to the Gulf our deguasing system shorted out.  I was very instrumental in the repair of cables under the boiler in the fire room.  I was promoted to E-5 then and later to E-6 while aboard the Okinawa.
Upon completion of my first tour of sea duty, I was transferred to recruiting duty in Del City, Oklahoma.  I spent four years there.  In the first year I was in second place for “Rookie of the Year” and was the distinguished graduate of my class in recruiting school in Florida.  During the second year, I was placed in charge of the Del City station for the next three years.  Each year that I was in charge, the station won station of the year for three consecutive years.  We won numerous awards in between.  My two subordinates won “Rookie of the Year” and “Recruiter of the Year.” They were promoted for their efforts.
When I was reassigned to the Valley Forge.  I had a pleasant surprise waiting for me.  My captain from my recruiting district submitted my name for some type of advancement program which led to a promotion to E-7.  Aboard the Valley Forge, I ran E division and also became a RAST technician.  While we were out on operations, I was flown to another ship to repair their RAST equipment because no one else in the immediate area could do it.
After that, I was transferred to the Princeton where I maintained the departmental 3M program and qualified in EPCC, PACE, and import EDO.  My last duty station was NAVSTA 32nd Street, Waterfront Department.  I was responsible for changing the 3M system from manual to fully automated on the computer.
During my naval career, I earned the ESWS pin, 17 Gold Wreath Awards from recruiting, Letters of Commendation, Four Navy Achievement Medals, the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, Three Good Conduct Medals, and a Navy Commendation Medal.
Another reason I joined the Navy was because I knew I would visit the Philippines where I was born.  While I was there I could have met someone special to possibly marry.  During one of my West-Pac tours, I did.  When I got back to San Diego, I petitioned for her to come to the states.  We were married, which made my life perfect.  As time passed our relationship grew stronger.  I consistently made rank and everything was working out.  The children arrived.  It was like a fairy tale coming true.  I was living mine complete with the white picket fence.
Unfortunately, during my last sea duty aboard the Princeton, my marriage began to falter.  While deployed for six months chasing drug smugglers.  I noticed my wife responding differently to my letters and phone calls.  When the ship came home, my wife was not even on the dock.  When I got to the house I was sure something was wrong.  She was not the same woman I had married.  A couple of months later I discovered that she was having an affair with another sailor.  I was devastated.  I am not blaming my ex-wife because what I did was my fault.  I was very hurt and did not handle the situation properly.  One day my urinalysis came back positive.  Things got progressively worse to the point that I became homeless and alone.  Now that five years have passed, I want to change my life and be the successful man I used to be.  With the board’s help, I am asking that my discharge be upgraded from Other than Honorable to General.  This way I can regain my dignity and honor and pursue a government job which I started on May 5, 1982.
I am currently a resident at the Vietnam Veterans of San Diego (VVSD) rehabilitation program and am doing well and making good progress in my recovery.

Thank you,”

Documentation

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

Letter from Program Director, Vietnam Veterans of San Diego, Inc., dated May 25, 2003
Applicant’s letter, undated and unsigned
Applicant’s DD Form 214

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	811230 - 820504	COG
	Active:   USNR		820505 - 850501	HON
		   USN			850502 - 910429	HON
		   USN			910430 - 970414	HON

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  970415		Date of Discharge:  980723

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    01  03  09
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  39			Years Contracted:  5

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  54

Highest Rate:  EMC

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages:  All enlisted performance reports were available to the Board for review.

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  ESWS, GWA (17), Letter of Commendation (4), NAM (4), SSR (3), NEA (3), GCM (3), AFEM, MUC (3), NRSR, NCM, SASM with Bronze Star

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:

980306:	NAVDRUGLAB, San Diego, CA, reported Applicant’s urine sample, received 980302, tested positive for methamphetamine.

980306:	NAVDRUGLAB, San Diego, CA, reported Applicant’s urine sample, received 980318, tested positive for amphetamine/methamphetamine.

980320:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 112A (2 specs): (1) Wrongfully use methamphetamine on 980302, (2) Wrongfully use methamphetamine on 980317.
	Award: Forfeiture of $1118 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, written reprimand.  No indication of appeal in the record.

980406:	Drug and Alcohol Abuse Report: Amphetamines abuse, 4-7 times per week, ashore off duty.  Random urinalysis 980302.  Clinical psychologist found Applicant dependent and recommended separation.  Commanding Officer recommended separation.  Comments: ENC(SW) M_ (Applicant) tested positive for methamphetamine during a random urinalysis on or about March 2, 1998.  He has been medically diagnosed as substance abuse dependent.  NJP for violation of Art 112A: Wrongful use methamphetamine.  Awarded Forfeiture ½ pay for 2 months, 45 days extra duty, 45 restriction.  EMC(SW) M_ (Applicant) will be processed for administrative separation.

980414:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.

980419:	Applicant advised of rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge Board.

980511:	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.

980604:	Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse (use).

980708:	Commander, Naval Base, San Diego, CA 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 19980723 under other than 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.  Mandatory processing for separation is required for sailors who abuse illegal drugs.  Separation under these conditions generally results in characterization of service under other than honorable conditions.  The evidence of record does not demonstrate that the Applicant was not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions.  The Applicant’s discharge characterization accurately reflects his service to this country.  Relief denied.

The Board was impressed with the efforts the Applicant has begun to make in attempting to recoup his reputation, which has been sullied by his misconduct in the Navy.  Nonetheless, to permit relief, a procedural error or inequity must have existed during the period of enlistment in question.  No such error or inequity occurred 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, 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, employment record, documentation of community service, certification of non-involvement with civil authorities and credible evidence of a substance free lifestyle, as examples of verifiable documentation that can be provided to receive consideration for relief, based on post-service conduct.  

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 documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments or any other evidence related to his discharge 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 18, effective 12 Dec 97 to 19 May 99, 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