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

  ex-ENFA, USN
Docket No. ND04-00810

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20040419.  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 review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20041222.  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.  “To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing in regards to my discharge from the United States Navy.  I feel that my discharge should be changed for a number of reasons.  First I would like to share a little part of my story.  In December of 2001 several military personnel and I used ecstasy.  Speaking for myself it was a very huge mistake.  I didn’t plan on ever doing it again and was just going to go on with my life and try to forget that night, then L_ M. W_ decided she wanted out of the Navy and the only way was to exploit what had happened that one night.  When I got called to the Master At Arms office I was informed that if I told the truth I wouldn’t get in much trouble.  I immediately told him everything, even writing a voluntary statement.  Everyone that was involved that night with the exception of QMSR L_ M. W_ and ENFN S_ M. K_ went to Captain’s Mast on January 26, 2002.  That group of people included FR V_ L. S_, HM3 B_ D. C_, FN T_, FN A_, FN C_, and myself.  That day at Captain’s Mast all the people listed above got the same sentence- 45 days restriction, 45 days extra duty and discharged with other than honorable conditions.  I was very upset needless to say, not that I had been punished but that I was lead to believe I had a chance of not getting discharged.  I didn’t want out of the military.  While we were serving our sentence L_ M. W_ was sent to Court Martial.  Which now brings me to the very point I need you to see and research.  W_ along with C_ and S_ are still serving in the Navy onboard the USS Oakhill LSD-51.  These punishments seem to be unfair.  I did what I was asked to do and still got more punishment than the other 3 people I listed.  I do understand my actions were wrong and I have paid for them dearly.  I would like to look past it and get on with my life but now it’s even hard for me to get a decent job.  I would also like to further my education but due to financial reasons I cannot afford to pay out of pocket, and as you know I am not allowed any financial aids due to the discharge I received.  I am currently married to a military husband and we have a son, and as a mother I would like to give my child a good future but this type of discharge is enabling me to progress in the business world.  That is why I am asking you to upgrade my discharge to General under honorable conditions.  Also living in foreign countries sometimes the Navy base is the only option for jobs and colleges and I am constantly punished by a mistake that I truly regret.  Please help me become a better person so I can be a good role model for my son.  Thank you for your time and consideration.”

Documentation

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

Statement of QMSR L_ M. W_ (9 pages)
Statement of ENFN S_ M. K_ (2 pages)
Statement of FR V_ L. S_ (2 pages)
Applicant’s Separation Orders (3 pages)
Report and Disposition of Offenses
Administrative Separation Processing Notice
NAVPERS 1070/613 Administrative Remarks

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	990830 - 000304	ELS
010512 - 010515	COG
	Active:   			None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  010516		Date of Discharge:  020404

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    00  10  19
	Inactive:  None

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

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  47/49

Highest Rate:  ENFA

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.00 (1)	Behavior:  1.00 (1)		OTA:  2.67

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NDSM

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:

020128:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 112a:  Wrongful use of a controlled substance.
	Award:  Restriction and extra duties for 45 days.  No indication of appeal in the record.

020128:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with a least favorable characterization of under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.

020128:	Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27(b), elected to waive all rights except the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation.

020404:	Applicant discharged under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.

Complete discharge package unavailable

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20020404 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to drug abuse (A).  After a thorough review of the available records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (B and C).  The presumption of regularity of governmental affairs was applied by the Board in this case in the absence of a complete discharge package (D).

Issue 1:  Normally, to permit relief, an impropriety or inequity must have existed during the period of enlistment in question.  No such impropriety or inequity is evident during the Applicant’s enlistment.  There is credible evidence in the record that the Applicant used illegal drugs.  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 Applicant’s allegations, that she was more severely punished than her co-offenders, do not refute the presumption of regularity in this case.  The evidence of record does not demonstrate that the Applicant was not responsible for her conduct or that she should not be held accountable for her actions.  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 naval service.  The NDRB is authorized, however, to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review.  Examples of documentation that should be provided to the Board include proof of educational pursuits, verifiable employment records, documentation of community service, credible evidence of a substance free lifestyle and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities.  As of this time, the Applicant has not provided any documentation for the Board to consider.  Relief denied.

The Veterans Administration determines eligibility for post-service benefits not the Navy Discharge Review Board.  There is no requirement or law that grants recharacterization solely on the issue of obtaining Veterans' benefits and this issue does not serve to provide a foundation upon which the Board can grant relief.  Additionally, the Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment or educational opportunities.  Regulations limit the Board’s review to a determination on the propriety and equity of the discharge.  

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 33, effective 16 Jul 2001 until 21 Aug 2002, Article 1910-146 (formerly 3630620), Separation by Reason of Misconduct - Drug Abuse.

B.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part V, Para 502, Propriety.

C.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part V, Para 503, Equity.

D.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part II, AUTHORITY/POLICY FOR DEPARTMENTAL DISCHARGE REVIEW.

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 “http://Boards.law.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:

		Secretary of the Navy Council of Review Boards
		Attn:  Naval Discharge Review Board
		720 Kennon Street SE Rm 309
		Washington Navy Yard DC  20374-5023