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

 ex-IT3, USN
Docket No. ND04-01409

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20040907.  The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable.  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.  “My discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident in 62 months of outstanding service with no other adverse action.
I started my enlistment as a natural leader in boot camp with other recruits looking up to me.  I carried the “guide on” and our divisions’ number, 116, with pride.  After boot camp I went to RM “A” school and graduated second in the class with over a 98% average.  Achieving this enabled me to advance to an E-4 automatically and choose where I was going to go for my first command, NCTS Keflavik Iceland.

     Within the first six months at NCTS Keflavik I became the first Seaman Apprentice to be supervisor qualified ever in the tech control department.  After this the command allowed me to automatically advance to E-4 in accordance with my achievements from “A” school.  Being supervisor and only an E-4 seemed to have its challenges when explaining to Admirals why they are not receiving any mail.  But my chain of command always explained that I was the resident expert and to listen to what I said.  This made doing my job less stressful knowing that the chain of command would back me and my decision making.  In turn those things made me do more for the command like work on downed circuits past my normal working hours and get more involved with command functions.  NCTS Keflavik received many awards for having minimal circuit outages and optimal circuit connectivity, which are both direct results of the work the sections that were under my supervision produced.  Upon leaving Iceland I was awarded a Letter of Commendation from the Admiral of NAS Keflavik Iceland.

     My next command was to attend ISA “C” school in San Diego in route to USNS Niagara Falls.  In “C” school I excelled and graduated at the top of the class.  Upon completion of school I was ready to serve on board a ship.  I went to the ship expecting to be doing what I went to school for, systems administrator.  I ended up in the radio shack doing the complete opposite of what I expected.  After adjusting to this I became supervisor qualified within only a few months.  While on board the ship we went to East Timor and helped them rebuild their schools which were destroyed by civil conflict.  This earned us all humanitarian awards. I also volunteered to serve 3 months in the Persian Gulf while the ship was in the dry docks.  The year on board the ship went by and I was destined for my third and final command, NCTAMS Naples Italy.

     It was in Naples that I was able to use the skills I acquired at “C” school. I became supervisor qualified in a short time and was in charge of critical information. While at NCTAMS I received my good conduct medal and decided to reenlist in the Navy.

     It was one year after reenlisting that I made the most crucial mistake of my life, I was found guilty of a violation of the UCMJ; Article 112(a) - wrongful use of a controlled substance.  I went out into town with my Italian friends and had a few too many drinks and got stuck in the middle of peer pressure and trying to fit in with the local people and smoked a joint of marijuana with them.  I regret the choice that I made which resulted in the early termination of my second enlistment.

     I feel that I served my country with honor, courage and commitment but made one stupid mistake along the way.  As you can see from my final evaluation I was not a problem in the Navy and that this was an isolated incident.

     I am sorry for what I have done and that is why I would like for my discharge to be changed to a general discharge under honorable conditions.  If the discharge is upgraded I can receive my Montgomery GI Bill, go back to school, and earn my degree in computer science and also receive VA benefits as well.

     I hope you can see past the error of my mistake and not hold this against me while making your final decision. Thank you for your time and careful consideration in reviewing this case.”

Documentation

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

Applicant’s Evaluation Report and Counseling Record, dated February 4, 2003

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	971230 - 980106	COG
	Active:   USN			980107 – 020102	HON

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  020103		Date of Discharge:  030307

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    01  02  04
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  25			Years Contracted:  6 

Education Level:  12 (GED)		AFQT:  76

Highest Rate:  IT2

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

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

Military Decorations:  None

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

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:

020103:	Applicant re-enlisted into the Navy at NCTAMS, Naples, Italy.

030103:	NAVDRUGLAB, Jacksonville, FL., reported Applicant’s urine sample, received 021224, tested positive for THC.

030114:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 112a:  Wrongful use of a controlled substance.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $874.00 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to E-4.  No indication of appeal in the record.

030114:	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.

030114:	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.

030128:	Commanding Officer, U. S. Naval Computer and Telecommunications Area Master Station, Europe Central, authorized the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.

030306:	Commanding Officer advised CNPC of Applicant’s discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.  Commanding Officer’s comments (verbatim):  Based on IT3 T_ (Applicant)’s misconduct, I administratively processed IT3 T_ (Applicant) from further Naval service on 14 January 2003 using administrative board procedures with a characterization of Other than Honorable discharge.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20030307 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).

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.  Relief not warranted.

Issue 1:  The Applicant states his discharge was based on one isolated incident.  The Applicant’s service record is marred by award of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for illegal drug use, thus substantiating the misconduct for which he was separated.  The summary of service clearly documents that misconduct due to drug abuse was the reason the Applicant was discharged.  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.   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.  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. 

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