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

  ex-HA, USN
Docket No. ND05-00219

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20041117.  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 did not list any representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20050201.  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 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.  “My discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident in 34 months of service with no other adverse action.  My performance at work, both before and after my offense, was exemplary, including rehabilitation.

I do not condone my actions while TAD to the USS Harpers Ferry in Mazatlan, Mexico approximately between the dates of February 22nd and February 25th.  It is with great regret that I am giving this statement.  That I would ever put myself in a position where my character and career are put into question deeply troubles me, and I am not without shame or disappointment in myself.

Upon entering the Navy in April of 2000, my life lacked the personal accomplishments of pride and dignity.  It has been through the Navy that I had acquired these attributes.  There has never been a doubt in my mind that enlisting was the best decision that I have ever made.  I have worn my uniform with a sense of pride that on numerous occasions has brought tears to my eyes.  I fear that with one bad decision, I may have thrown all of that away.  I would give anything to take back the wrong I’ve done.  By Navy standards I have committed a crime, and I understand that I will be punished for it however the Navy sees just.  I pray, however, that in doing so, the Navy will consider that I am willing and capable of reform, and that, I am an asset and not a loss.  I love the Navy.  There is nothing I want more than to continue service.  I owe the Navy so much for what it has done for me.  I would still like the opportunity to give back to my country.”

Documentation

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

Applicant’s DD Form 214
Sixteen character witness statements
Letter from LCDR J_ C. B_
Fourteen pages from Applicant’s service record

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	991110 - 000424	COG
	Active:   None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  000425		Date of Discharge:  030225

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    02  10  01  (Does not exclude confinement)
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  4 (12 months extension)

Education Level:  11			AFQT:  84

Highest Rate:  HN

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.67 (3)		Behavior:  3.00 (3)		OTA:  3.33

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NDSM, LC (3), LA (2)

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:

021018:	Summary Court-Martial.
Charge I. Violation of UCMJ, Article 92:  Wrongfully socializing and sharing a room with E7 on 020223.
Charge II.  Violation of UCMJ, Article 112a (2 specs): Wrongfully used Ritalin and Valium.
Finding:  To charge I, not guilty; to charge II and all specifications, guilty.
Sentence:  Confinement for 15 days, reduction to E-2.  
CA action: 021018.  Approved and ordered executed.

021114:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.

021114:	Applicant advised of rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge Board.

030128:	Command DAPA, NMC San Diego reported that Applicant failed to complete aftercare requirements upon completion of treatment for alcohol dependence.

030130:	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, by a vote of 2 to 1, that the misconduct warranted separation, and by unanimous vote, recommended discharge under honorable conditions (general).

030304:	Commanding Officer directed 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 20030325 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).

Issue 1.  The Applicant’s summary court-martial provides credible evidence that the she used 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 her misconduct to a degree that would warrant relief.  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 her service to her country.  Normally, to permit relief, an inequity or impropriety must have existed during the period of enlistment in question.  No such inequity or impropriety 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 she remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received at the NDRB within 15 years from the date of her 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