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

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

ex-MM2, USN
Docket No. ND06-00512

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20060302.  The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable.  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 20061214.  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 General (Under Honorable Conditions) by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.

The NDRB did note administrative error(s) on the original DD Form 214.  Block 18, Remarks, should contain the following statement:  “CONTINUOUS HONORABLE ACTIVE DUTY FROM 970904 UNTIL 031020,” and Block 25, Separation Authority, should read:  “MILPERSMAN 1910-146.”  The Commander, Navy Personnel Command, Millington, TN, will be notified, recommending the DD Form 214 be corrected or reissued, as appropriate.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

“My discharge was inappropriate because it was based on incidents during an isolated time period and it did not reflect my overall eximplary Navy service.  I was an early promote sailor that had a lapse of judgement.  I admitted to the offense on my own accord, I did not fail a urinalysis”

Documentation

In addition to the service and medical records, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:

Applicant’s DD Form 214 (Member 4) (2)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	19961204 - 19970903	COG
	Active:   USN	19970904 - 20000409	HON
		USN	20000410 - 20031020	HON

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  20031021		Date of Discharge:  20040205

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    00  03  15
	Inactive:  None

Time Lost During This Period (days):

	Unauthorized absence:  None
	Confinement:		  None

Age at Entry:  24

Years Contracted:  6

Education Level:  12				AFQT:  90

Highest Rate:  MM1

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  NA*				Behavior:  NA*		OTA:  NA*

Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, (as listed on the DD Form 214):  Strategic Deterrent Patrol Pin(7); National Defense Service Medal; Navy Good Conduct Medal(2); Navy “E” Ribbon; Letter of Commendation(2).

* Not Available

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT, authority: MILPERSMAN, Article 1910-146, formerly 3630620.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events: 

031021:	Reenlisted this date for a term of 6 years.

031118:	Applicant’s voluntary statement.

031216:	Applicant’s statement.

040102:	Commanding Officer recommends permanent removal from all nuclear propulsion plant duties.

040109:	Applicant found medically qualified for separation.

040112:	Officer in Charge, Submarine Group 10 Transient Division, recommended discharge with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.  Commanding Officer’s comments:  “Recommend an administrative separation from the Naval Service with a characterization of service of General (Under Honorable Conditions) by reason of Misconduct - Drug Abuse.  Petty Officer G_(Applicant) admitted to drug use between November 2000 to February 2001 during an NCIS interview on 031118.  MM1 G_ has no potential for future service.”[The Document date read “030112” believed to be a typing error]

040116:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with the least favorable characterization of service as general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct - drug abuse.

040116:	Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult with counsel, elected to waive all rights except the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation.

040125:	Commander, Submarine Group 10, authorized the Applicant's discharge with a general (under 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 20040205 by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse (A and B) with a service characterization of general (under 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 “My discharge was inappropriate because it was based on incidents during an isolated time period and it did not reflect my overall exemplary Navy service.”  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.  A general 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 the Applicant’s voluntary statement admitting drug abuse.  Drug abuse is in direct violation of Article 112a of the UCMJ.  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 and falls far short of that required for an upgrade of his characterization of service.  Relief is not warranted.

The Applicant claims he was an early promote Sailor that had a lapse of judgment.  The Applicant claims his discharge was based on an incident during an isolated period over his entire career.  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 his own admission of 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.  No other Narrative Reason for Separation could more clearly describe why the Applicant was discharged.  Regulations limit the Board’s review to a determination of the propriety and equity of the discharge.  In the Applicant’s case, the Board could discern no impropriety or inequity and therefore considers his discharge proper and equitable.  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 28 April 2005, 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, Article 112a (Wrongful use, possession, etc. of controlled substances). 

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