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

   ex-IT3, USN
Docket No. ND05-00431

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 2005112.  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 review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20050616.  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

No issues were 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
Admittance letter to Columbus Technical College, dated September 27, 2004
Event Promoter contract, dated October 10, 2004 (3 pages)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	000214 - 000815	COG
	Active:   None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  000816		Date of Discharge:  040312

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    03  06  27
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  68

Highest Rate:  IT2

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.80 (5)		Behavior:  2.80 (5)		OTA:  3.54*

Military Decorations:  NAM (2)

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NDSM, HSM, GCM

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  39

*Did not have the second page of evaluation for one of the four evaluations.

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:

040113:	NAVDRUGLAB, Jacksonville, FL, reported Applicant’s urine sample, received 040109, tested positive for THC.

040114:	Applicant to unauthorized absence 2330, 040114.

040122:	Applicant missed ship’s movement.

040127: 	Applicant missed ship’s movement.

040206: 	Applicant missed ship’s movement.

040207: 	Applicant missed ship’s movement.

040223:	Applicant from unauthorized absence 0200, 040223 (39 days/surrendered).

040225:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 112A: Wrongfully use marijuana on 040106, violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence from 040115 to 040223, violation of UCMJ, Article 87 (4 specs): (1) Missed ship’s movement on 040122, (2) Missed ship’s movement on 040127, (3) Missed ship’s movement on 040206, (4) Missed ship’s movement on 040207.
	Award: Forfeiture of $943 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to E-X.  No indication of appeal in the record.

040225:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.  Applicant notified that the least favorable characterization of service possible is under other than honorable conditions.

040225:	Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult with qualified 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.

040225:	Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.

040309:	Commander, Naval Surface Group TWO directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20040312 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.  If a review of the available records reveals an impropriety or inequity, relief is in order.  Regulations permit relief on equitable grounds if the Applicant’s discharge is inconsistent with standards of discipline of the Naval service.  There is credible evidence in the record that the Applicant used illegal drugs.  The Applicant was awarded nonjudicial punishment for violations of UMCJ Articles 86, unauthorized absence for 39 days, 87, missing ship’s movement on 4 separate occasions, and 112a for wrongful drug use.  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 was properly notified, processed and discharged under other than honorable conditions.  Based upon available records, nothing indicates that the Applicant’s discharge was in any way inconsistent with the standards of discipline in the United States Navy.  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 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 could be provided to the Board include proof of educational pursuits, verifiable employment records, documentation of community service, and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities.  The Board received and considered all of the Applicant’s submissions, including his letter of admission into technical college and his event promoter contract.  As of this time, the Applicant’s post-service conduct has been insufficient to mitigate his misconduct while in the Naval service.  Relief denied.

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 any additional documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments or any other evidence related to his 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), 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