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

 ex-OS3, USN
Docket No. ND04-01363

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20040902.  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.  “I feel my discharge (OTH) was wrong.  I was wrongfully accused and convicted of using drugs, although I had taken several urinalysis tests during my 30 plus months of service.  My most recent test was given right after I was charged with using drugs and my results came back negative, as the rest always were.  The only evidence at my Captain’s Mast was hearsay.  I would like to see my discharge upgraded so I may be able to continue my career in the Armed Service.”

Documentation

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

Applicant’s DD Form 214
Email correspondence/urinalysis results

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	000120 - 000723	COG
	Active:   			None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  000724		Date of Discharge:  030221

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    02  06  28
	Inactive:  None

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

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  54

Highest Rate:  OS2

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.00 (2)	Behavior:  2.00 (2)		OTA:  2.43

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NDSM, OSR (2)

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:

030116:	NAVDRUGLAB, Jacksonville, FL, reported Applicant’s urine sample, received on 030115, tested negative.

030130:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 112a (2 Specs):  Wrongful use of a controlled substance, violation of UCMJ, Article 134 (2 specs):  Indecent exposure, drunk and disorderly conduct.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $789.00 pay per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to E-4.  No indication of appeal in the record.

030130:	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.

030130:	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.

030204:	Commander, Submarine Group EIGHT directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.

030904:	Commander, Submarine Group EIGHT, message to CNMPC concerning Applicant’s discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.  Commanding Officer’s comments (verbatim):  OS3 B_ was identified in a drug investigation involving growing marijuana and using controlled substances by members of Security in the local area.  In the investigation, witnesses identified OS3 B_ as using cocaine and hashish.  He was found to have committed the following misconduct at non-judicial punishment on 30 Jan 03:  Wrongfully using hashish, wrongfully using cocaine, indecent exposure, and drunk and disorderly conduct.  Based on his conduct, he was determined to have no potential for future naval service.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20030221 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:  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.  When the service of a member of the U.S. Navy has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service as honorable.  An under other than honorable conditions discharge is warranted when significant negative aspects of a member's conduct or performance of duty outweigh the positive aspects of the member's military record.  The Applicant’s service was marred by nonjudicial punishment proceedings for violations of UCMJ Articles 112a, wrongful use of a controlled substance and 134, indecent exposure and drunk or disorderly conduct.  The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflects his willful failure to meet the requirements of his contract with the U.S. Navy.   Such conduct falls far short of that expected of a member of the U.S. military and does not meet the requirements for an upgrade of his characterization of service.  Relief is not warranted.

The Applicant contends that he never used drugs and that each of his urinalysis test results were returned negative.  The record contains evidence of witness testimony implicating the Applicant in wrongful use of hashish and cocaine despite his contentions to the contrary.  Based on this testimony, the Applicant was awarded punishment at NJP and processed for administrative separation.  Separation processing for misconduct due to drug abuse is appropriate when a preponderance of substantial and credible evidence establishes that a member has wrongfully used a controlled substance.  There is no requirement that such evidence take the form of a positive urinalysis.  Likewise, there is no requirement that such evidence be admissible at court-martial under any of the formal rules of evidence.  As such, the Board can find no impropriety or inequity based simply on the Commanding Officer’s reliance on hearsay evidence in the administrative processing of the Applicant.  Relief denied.

Since the NDRB has no jurisdiction over reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Navy, Marine Corps, or any other of the Armed Forces, NDRB is not authorized to change a reenlistment code.  An unfavorable “RE” code is, in itself, not a bar to reenlistment.  A request for a waiver can be submitted during the processing of a formal application for reenlistment through a recruiter.  Only the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) can make changes to reenlistment codes.

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.  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), re-issued October 2002, effective 22 Aug 2002 until Present, 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 II, AUTHORITY/POLICY FOR DEPARTMENTAL DISCHARGE REVIEW.

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

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

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