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

 
ex-OMSN, USN
Docket No. ND03-01509

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20030924.  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 20040712.  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.  “My issue of why I think my discharge should be changed is because I made a mistake.  Back in 1998, I was stationed in Norfolk, VA on the USS Emory S. Land.  I started hanging around some people who were not so good.  I soon was living in an apartment off base/ship with these so called friends and fellow shipmates.  I was 19-20 years of age and first time living away from home and was soon introduced to a drug.  I was caught and put before captain’s mast.  I know I made a huge mistake with my Naval career, but I helped investigators, any way possible to get these fellow shipmates out of the Navy.  My efforts in the long run proved meaningless.  I am and was a very hard worker and a loyal worker.  I was young and stupid and to me paid the biggest price that I could and was dismissed by the Navy.  My dreams were to become a great Navy officer.  After the Navy, I began to attend college and was soon offered a job with BellSouth Mobility in 1999.  I was a sales associate.  I still work for BellSouth Mobility, renamed to Cingular Wireless as a Service technician / temporary shop manager.  I will be married this November to a wonderful man.  I am very proud to say that I was a part of the Navy, I only wish that I could have proven to the Navy that I was worth keeping.  I have never touched or came into contact w/ drugs after my incident.  I am sorry for what I did, I would just like f or my discharge to be Honorable due to my efforts and my past work evaluations and present.  I would like to hold my head a bit higher, when talking about my Naval career, short but full of good memories.  Thank you for your time.”
2.   “I believe my discharge was inequitable because it was based on one incident over 27 months of exemplary service in the United States Navy with no previous misconduct.  I would like for the board to review the reasons listed and documentation provided to make a decision to change my discharge from General under Honorable Condition to Honorable.  I know that the Navy’s policy on drugs in zero tolerance.  I just wish that my mistake had not cost me my career with the Navy.  When I was serving in the United States Navy, I was a good, determined, hard-working silor.  I loved my job, and if I could erase or go back in time, my decision to use a drug would be no.  As well as pick better roommates/friends.  I have presented my reasons listed above and on the other document for changing the type of discharge and hope that the board will find that my reasons for the change are worthy.  People make mistakes and nobody is perfect.  However, I took responsibility of my mistake, even helped in the possible termination of such sailors using drugs, something that most people would fight to get out of.”

Documentation

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

Copy of DD Form 214 (Member 1 and Member 4)
North Alabama Technician of the month, Cingular Wireless, dated October 2002
North Alabama Technician of the month, Cingular Wireless, dated September 2002
Phi Theta Kappa Society – International Scholastic Order of the Two-year College
Evaluation Report & Counseling Report – United States Navy
Class honor graduate – United States Navy Opticalman “A” School
Class honor graduate – United States Navy Opticalman “C” School
Employee Performance Review Bellsouth Mobility, year of 1999
Employee Performance Review Bellsouth Mobility, year of 2000
Promotion memo, Cingular Wireless
Employee Performance Review Bellsouth Mobility, year of 2002

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	950828 - 960702	COG
	Active:   None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  960703		Date of Discharge:  981027

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    02  03  25
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  4 

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  63

Highest Rate:  OMSN

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.00 (1)*	Behavior:  3.00 (1)*		OTA:  3.14*

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  None

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

*  [EXTRACTED FROM SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE  
    APPLICANT.]
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:

980126:	NAVDRUGLAB, Jacksonville, FL, reported Applicant’s urine sample, received 980120, tested positive for cocaine.

980303:	Drug and Alcohol Abuse Report:  Marijuana abuse, ashore-off duty.  Random urinalysis on 980109.  Physician and DAPA found Applicant not dependent and recommends separation.  Commanding Officer recommends separation.  Comments:  Past and present work and record reflects SNM was evaluated by the Medical Officer on 980210 and was found not dependent and is considered to have no potential for further Naval service.

980324:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 112A:  Wrongful use of marijuana.

980325:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse and misconduct due to commission of a serious offense as evidenced by your nonjudicial punishment on 980324 for the wrongful use of marijuana and cocaine.

980325:	Commanding Officer, Shore Intermediate Maintenance Activity, Norfolk recommended discharge general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse (use).  

Unavailable	Administrative Discharge Board found OMSN M_ (Applicant) committed misconduct due to drug abuse and recommended retention.  The Commanding Officer concurs.    [EXTRACTED FROM CHIEF OF NAVAL PERSONNEL, DATED SEPTEMBER 1, 1998.]

980325:	Commanding Officer, Shore Intermediate Maintenance Activity, Norfolk recommended discharge general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse (use).  

980901:	Chief of Naval Personnel recommended to Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower and Reserve Affairs), Applicant’s discharge to an administrative separation of OMSN M_ (Applicant) for misconduct due to drug abuse with a characterization of service as general (under honorable conditions).

980918:	Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) approved recommendation for discharge administrative separation of OMSN M_ (Applicant) for misconduct due to drug abuse with a characterization of service as general (under honorable conditions).

980922:	BUPERS directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse (use).

Parts of Applicant’s discharge package missing from service record. 

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19981027 with a general (under honorable conditions) for misconduct due to drug abuse (A).  In the absence of a complete discharge package, the Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (B) and, after a thorough review of available records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, found that the discharge was proper and equitable (C and D).

Issues 1, 2,  The Applicant states her discharge was based on one isolated incident in “27 months.”  Despite a servicemember’s prior record of service, certain serious offenses, even though isolated, warrant separation from the naval service in order to maintain proper order and discipline.  The Applicant’s service record is marred by award of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for illegal drug use, thus substantiating the misconduct for which she was separated.  The summary of service clearly documents that misconduct due to drug abuse was the reason the Applicant was discharged.  No other Narrative Reason for Separation could more clearly describe why the Applicant was discharged.  Regulations limit the Board’s review to a determination on the propriety and equity of the discharge.  In the Applicant’s case, the Board could discern no impropriety or inequity and therefore consider her discharge proper and equitable.  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 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.  

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 her 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