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

ex-ET1, USN
Docket No. ND03-01282

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20030725.  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.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20040526.  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.  “I did 14 good years in the Navy.  With the exception of the weight control program, I would even have to say I enjoyed the lifestyle.  I was qualified every underway SR. watch station I could qualify.  At the end, I was standing mid watch dive, was the battle stations CDW, ran 8 jr. ET’s at sea & in port, & was standing duty inport as a DCPO for as long as I could remember.
I know the rules, but honestly didn’t believe anything was going to happen to me.  I had just returned off leave, where yes, some old friends got me to do a very little amount of cocaine.  It wasn’t enough even be part of the in-crowd.  I got back to Pearl & checked in for duty off leave the same day.  There just happened to be a urineanalysis that day – no big deal, I was the first one in line for it.  I hadn’t done enough of anything to be worried.
It was a shock when the results came back, I thought there had to be a mistake.  I think the minimum count was 150 something or another.  My count was either 210 or 510 I can’t remember.  My lawyer had explained to me that is was minimal.  I verified this by getting counts from some of the folks I was in lock-up with.  25,000 plus was the next lowest count!  I was thinking, “yea, I deserve this alright.”
The lawyer suggested I take a lie detector but he told me exactly what whould be asked, “Have you done drugs in the Navy?” or something similar.  Everyone I knew, including some higher ups, smoked grass back in early 80’s.  Of course I’m not going to say that, I’ve got too much respect for those individuals & the job we did.  I can’t answer that.  I was a good sailor.  This made me lose my self-respect.  I didn’t deserve that.  I’d like to be able to tell my son his father was a good sailor-  Ask around, I was a good sailor.  One who made a mistake on his time (leave) & has paid for it for over 6 ½ years now-”

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)	801128 - 810331	COG
	Active:   USN			810401 - 860821	HON
	               USN			860822 - 900412	HON

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  900413		Date of Discharge:  961127

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    06  07  15
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  30			Years Contracted:  5 (21 months extension)

Education Level:  12 1/2		AFQT:  87

Highest Rate:  ET1

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  4.00 (9)	Behavior:  4.00 (9)		OTA:  4.00  (4.0 evals)
Performance:  4.00 (1)	Behavior:  1.00 (1)		OTA:  3.57  (5.0 evals)

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NAM (4), GCM (4), NEM, NUC, NER, ESWBI

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:

961003:	NAVDRUGLAB, San Diego, CA, reported Applicant’s urine sample, received 960923, tested positive for cocaine.

961004:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 112A: Wrongful use of controlled substance, to wit: cocaine.
	Award: Forfeiture of ½ month pay for 2 months, restriction for 60 days, reduction to ET2.  No indication of appeal in the record.

961007:	Drug and Alcohol Abuse Report: Cocaine abuse, ashore off duty.  Random urinalysis 960923.  Commanding Officer recommended separation.  Comments: Potential: ET1/SS W_ (Applicant) has no potential for further naval service.  ET1/SS W_ (Applicant) has had a great _____ record until present.

961008:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse as evidenced by your Commanding Officer’s nonjudicial punishment of 961004 for violation of UCMJ Article 112A, wrongful use of a controlled substance.

961009:	Applicant advised of rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge Board.

961110:	Counsel for the Applicant, requested a continuance in the administrative discharge board.

961113:	Counsel for the Applicant, requested production of witnesses and rescheduling of the administrative discharge board.

961114:	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, and by a vote of 2 to 1, that the misconduct warranted separation, and recommended discharge general (under honorable conditions).

961118:	Commanding Officer directed discharge general (under 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 19961127 with a 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.  Mandatory processing for separation is required for sailors who abuse illegal drugs.  There is credible evidence in the record that the Applicant used illegal drugs and 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.  A characterization of service as general (under honorable conditions) was warranted since Applicant’s record of service constituted a departure from that expected of a Sailor in the U.S. Navy.  Relief is 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 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.  Navy Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 14, effective 
03 Oct 96 until 11 Dec 97, Article 3630620  SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL 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