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

 ex-HN, USN
Docket No. ND04-00021

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20031001.  The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable.  The Applicant requests a documentary record review.  The Applicant listed the Disabled American Veterans as the representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20040817.  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 considered 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, 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.  “While in the military I gave 100%.  I entered into the U.S. Navy with the lowest ASVAB score.  I’m very grateful that I was given the opportunity to go to corpsman school considering my scores.  I put forth great effort, passing not only my written classes but all of the training to serve as a corpsman for the U.S. Marine Corp.  I received excellent marks before and after charges were made.  Not only did my evaluation state of my good work but I moved up in rank after charges were filed.  I was told after going to the admit separation board I was being recommended to stay in the service.  Then I received my orders for my new duty station in Meredian Mississippi.  Imagine not only my surprise but that of my officer when I was told I was being discharged.  I have never tested positive for any drugs.  Not before entering the service, during, or after.  I would still be serving our country had this not happened.  I have been in the civilian world for over 2 years and have never had any trouble.  I would like to continue my education in the medical field and try to finish part of what I started in the U.S. Navy.  I believe I was given a lot of experience to get started with and I’m a better person for having served.  Thank you for taking the time to evaluate my situation and I hope I will receive my benefit and go on to be a R.N. staying in the medical field.”

2.  “Dear Chairperson:

After a review of the Former Service Members (FSM) DD Form 293 Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States and all evidence assembled for review, we continue to note the contention of the appellant in his request for a discharge upgrade of his current General Under Honorable Conditions discharge to that of Honorable.

The FSM served on active service from December 22, 1997 to April 23, 2001 at which time he was discharged due to Misconduct. 

The FSM contends the current discharge is improper because he only had this one instance. Was promoted both before and after the charges, and was told he would be recommended for further service, also receiving orders for his next duty station. Subsequently, to his surprise he was referred to an Administrative Board for discharge.

This creates a need for a review of the application of the standard, for the Board to determine that the applicant’s discharge was improper. The Board will determine which reason for discharge should have been assigned based upon the facts and circumstances before the Board, including the service regulations governing the reasons for discharge at that time, to determine whether relief is warranted. See, SECNAVIST 5420.174 (c), Par. (f) (1).

As the representative, we ask that consideration be given to equitable relief, as this is a matter that involves a determination whether a discharge should be changed under the equity standards, to include any issue upon which the applicant submits to the Board’s discretionary authority, under SECNAVIST 5420.174C.

We ask for the Board’s careful and sympathetic consideration of all the evidence of record used in rendering a fair and impartial decision.  These issues do not supersede any issues previously submitted by the applicant.”

Documentation

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

Applicant’s DD Form 214
Letter from Louisiana Technical College

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	971122 - 971221	COG
	Active:   None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  971222		Date of Discharge:  010423

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    03  04  02
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  19			Years Contracted:  4 (12 months extension)

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  37

Highest Rate:  HN

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.25 (4)	Behavior:  2.00 (4)		OTA:  2.79

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  SSDR, AFSR, AFER, NFMFR

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

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

UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL)/MISCONDUCT, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-146, formerly 3630620.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

000118:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 112a: On or about 991226, wrongfully possess steroids aboard the USS Shreveport.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $563.00 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to E-2.  No indication of appeal in the record.

000217:	Retention Warning:  Advised of deficiency (insubordinate conduct to a petty officer, failure to obey a lawful order, use of provoking language), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

000508:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse as evidenced by nonjudicial punishment.

000508:	Applicant advised of rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge Board.

000718:	Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.  Recommended that discharge be suspended for 12 months. 

001102:	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 recommended retention.

010214:	CG, 2d FSSG recommended separation under other than honorable conditions and that Applicant’s discharge be suspended for 12 months.

010228:	CHNAVPERS recommended that Applicant be separated under honorable conditions (general).

010416:	OASN (M&RA) directed the Applicant's discharge under honorable conditions (general) by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20010423 under honorable conditions (general) 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).

Issues 1 and 2.  There is credible evidence in the record that the Applicant possessed illegal drugs.  Even one instance of drug abuse warranted processing for separation.  Separation under these conditions generally results in characterization of service under other than honorable conditions.  The positive aspects of the Applicant’s record do not mitigate his misconduct.  Relief denied.

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.  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 only during the processing of a formal application for enlistment through a recruiter.  

The Applicant’s discharge characterization accurately reflects his service to his country.  The discharge was proper and equitable.  Normally, to permit relief, an error or inequity must have existed during the period of enlistment in question.  No such error or inequity is evident 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.  Relief not warranted.

The Applicant is reminded that he remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received at the NDRB within 15 years from the date of his discharge.  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 31, dated 20 Feb 01, effective 12 Feb 2001 until 15 Jul 2001, 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