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

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

  ex-ET3, USN
Docket No. ND05-01513

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20050913.  The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions).  The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review.  The Applicant did not designate a representative on the DD Form 293.  

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20060614.  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 by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application: 

“As is evident in my service record I served the navy and this country very well.  I was awarded the navy good conduct medal, qualified submarines, served on four strategic deterrent patrols and served well on board the USS ALABAMA (731-G).  I also received good scores on evals and promoted to rank of E-5.  I also had a top secret clearance and always obeyed the rules associated there with.  I also never once failed a urinalysis, and never compromised my duties.  My issues is this for five and a half years I served and served well, but for one mistake, one instance it was all discarded.  I would like to consider to serve this country.  But for this one instance it was all lost.  And I would like a second chance.  So I respectfully request to have my discharge upgraded as stated above and my reenlistment code changed from an RE-4 to an RE-1 or one that would allow for my reenlistment.  Thank you for your consideration and review.”

Documentation

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

Only the service and medical records were reviewed.  The Applicant did not provide additional documentation for the Board’s consideration.

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	19970409 – 19971127		COG
	Active:   USN 			19971128 – 20001105		HON

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  20001106		Date of Discharge:  20030604

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    02  06  29  
	Inactive:  None

Time Lost During This Period (days):

	Unauthorized absence:  none
	Confinement:		  none

Age at Entry:  20 

Years Contracted:  5 

Education Level:  12				AFQT:  80

Highest Rate:  ET2

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.0 (2)		Behavior:  2.0 (2)		OTA:  2.60 

Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, (as listed on the DD Form 214):  Strategic Deterrent Patrol Pin (4), National Defense Service Medal, Navy Good Conduct Medal.

Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance):

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority: MILPERSMAN, Article 1910-146, formerly 3630620.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events: 

001106:	Reenlisted this date for a term of 5 years.

030205:	Charges preferred for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) Article 112a:  Wrongfully use Ketamine, a Schedule II controlled substance.

030206:	Charges referred to special court-martial.

030422:	Special Court-Martial.
	Charge:  violation of the UCMJ, Article 112a: In that Electronic Technician Second Class R_ A. M_, U.S. Navy, Submarine Group 9, Bangor, Washington, on active duty, did, at or near Silverdale, Washington, on or about October 2002, wrongfully use Ketamine, a Schedule II controlled substance.  Plea: Guilty.  Findings: Guilty.
	Sentence: Fined $1000.00 for 1 month, confinement for 30 days, reduced to E-4.  Pretrial agreement disapproved fine.
	
030429:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with the least favorable characterization of service under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct drug abuse.

030429:	Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult with counsel, elected to waive all rights.

030521:	Commanding Officer, Staff Enlisted Personnel, Submarine Group 9 recommended to Commander, Submarine Group 9 that Applicant be discharged under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct drug abuse.  Commanding Officer’s comments:  “ET2 M_ (Applicant) has over 5 years of active duty service, with a recent re-enlistment on 001106.  As a senior petty officer, he chose to ignore the Navy’s Zero Tolerance Policy concerning drug abuse and jeopardize his career as a Submarine Sailor.  His actions demonstrate a clear disregard for Navy Regulations and are prejudicial to good order and discipline.  ET2 M_ (Applicant) is, therefore, no longer suited for a career in the naval service.  I recommend he be discharged with a characterization of Other than Honorable.”

030522:	Medical evaluation by Clinical Psychologist, Naval Hospital Bremerton.
	AXIS I:  No Diagnosis/RTD, Legal Problem, Occupational Problem.  
	AXIS II: No Diagnosis
	AXIS III: Deferred to Physician
	AXIS IV: Discharge from Navy
	AXIS V: GAF=75 (current) 
	Recommendation: Level of Treatment: None.  Return to command; no further follow up indicated.

030527:	GCMCA, Commander, Submarine Group 9 authorized the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct pattern of minor disciplinary infraction.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW
Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20030604 by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse (A and B) with a service characterization of under other than honorable conditions.  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).  

The Applicant states, “that for five and a half years I served the navy and this country very well”. The Applicant further contends that he “made one mistake, and in one instance it was all discarded”.  The NDRB advises the Applicant that despite a servicemember’s prior record of service, certain serious offenses, even though isolated, warrant separation from the naval service in order to maintain proper order and discipline.  The Applicant’s service record is marred by a special court martial for illegal drug use, thus substantiating the misconduct for which he was separated. Regulations limit the Board’s review to a determination on the propriety and equity of the discharge. In the Applicant’s case, the Board could discern no impropriety or inequity and therefore consider his discharge proper and equitable.  Relief denied.

The Applicant requests a “reenlistment code change from an RE-4 to an RE-1 or one that would allow for his reenlistment”. 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 following is provided for the edification of the Applicant. 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 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 post-service documentation for the Board to consider.  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 documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments or any additional evidence related to this 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.  The Manual for Courts-Martial authorizes the award of a punitive discharge if adjudged as part of the sentence upon conviction by a special or general court-martial for violation of the UCMJ, Article112a (wrongful use of a controlled substance).

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