Author: CAP
Last saved by: Department of the Navy
Company: NCPB

Docket No. ND00-01086

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

ex-MMFA, USN
Docket No. ND00-01086

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 000926, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable or general/under honorable conditions.  The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review.  The applicant listed a civilian counsel as the representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 010313.  After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, NDRB discerned no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the applicant’s service.  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 (verbatim)

1.  I feel my case was handled too "By the book".  In my time in the Navy I was in the top of my class and spent many extra hours studying and helping out my shipmates.  I was told I was going to make a great nuclear plant operator.  At NPTU Charleston, that's where everything started going downhill for me.  My classroom grades were still going up but my military bearing started goining down.  I felt my chain of command was all against me.  It didn't matter that I was doing great in the classroom they hated me as a person.  They had it in for me since the beginning.  They tried to get me at ever opportunity, but that made me try harder to not get in trouble and do better in class to throw it in their face, but they finally got me. I felt my case was rushed, I didn't have any of my witnesses come forward and I felt the Board did that on purpose.  My mast was held at the end of the midshift and no body except the highest chain of command knew about it.  So all the instructors left a the end of the shift not knowing I was going to mast, I know I would have made a great nuclear operator and would have served my country to my fullest.  I felt that I was cheated out of this great opportunity by my chain of command. Please review my records at NPTU Charleston and also at NNPS Orlando.

Documentation

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

Copy of DD Form 214
Copy of Active Enlisted Summary Record dated June 23, 1999
Copy of DD Form 295

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   None
	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	970103 - 970824	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  970825			Date of Discharge:  990524

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    01  09  00
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  17 Parental Consent		Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12				AFQT:  Unreadable

Highest Rate:  MM3

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.00 (2)	Behavior:  2.00 (2)		OTA:  2.50

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  None 

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:

980212:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 107: With intent to deceive, make an official statement to wit: my run time is 12:40 which was totally false.
	Award: Oral admonition, restriction for 7 days, reduction to MMFN.  Reduction suspended for 6 months.  No indication of appeal in the record.

981013:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Violate a lawful order by wrongfully attending an off-limits establishment, to wit: Club Firestone.
	Award: Forfeiture of $539 per month for 1 month, restriction for 21 days, reduction to MMFN.  No indication of appeal in the record.

981013:	Retention Warning:  Advised of deficiency (Failure to obey order or regulation.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning. 

990419:	NAVDRUGLAB, Great Lakes, IL reports applicant's urine sample received 990409, tested positive for THC.

990422:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 112A: Wrongfully use THC on 6Apr99.
	Award: Forfeiture of $517 per month for 2 months, reduction to MMFA.  No indication of appeal in the record.

990426:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense and drug abuse.

990426:  	Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights.

990426:	Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense, drug abuse (use) and a pattern of misconduct. 

990510:	Commander, Navy Region Southeast directed the applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse (use).

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 990524 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to drug abuse (use) (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).

In the applicant’s issue 1, he states that “they had it in for me since the beginning.”  The applicant was brought to CO’s NJP on 3 separate occasions, one of which was for wrongful use of a controlled substance.  The Board finds that the applicant is responsible for his behavior and must accept the consequences of his actions.  No relief will be granted based on this issue. 

There is no law or regulation that provides for the upgrade of an unfavorable discharge based solely on the passage of time, or good conduct in the civilian life subsequent to leaving the Service.  However, the Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge (D).  Those factors include, but are not limited to, the following:  evidence of continuing educational pursuits (transcripts, diplomas, degrees, vocational-technical certificates), a verifiable employment record (Letter of Recommendation from boss), documentation of community service (letter from the activity/community group), certification of non-involvement with civil authorities (police records check) and proof of his not using drugs (detoxification certificate, AA meeting attendance or letter documenting participation in the program) in order for consideration for clemency based on post-service conduct.  At this time, the applicant has not provided any documentation of good character and conduct.  Therefore no relief will be granted.  The applicant is encouraged to continue with his pursuits and is reminded that he is eligible for a personal appearance hearing provided the application is received within 15-years from the date of discharge.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 18, effective 12 Dec 97 to 19 May 99, Article 1910-146 (formerly 3630620), Separation by Reason of Misconduct - Drug Abuse.

B.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 2, AUTHORITY/POLICY FOR DEPARTMENTAL DISCHARGE REVIEW.  

C.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 9, paragraph 9.2, PROPRIETY OF THE DISCHARGE.

D.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 9, paragraph 9.3, EQUITY OF THE DISCHARGE.

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 "afls14.jag.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:

		Naval Council of Personnel Boards
		Attn:  Naval Discharge Review Board
		720 Kennon Street SE Rm 309
		Washington Navy Yard DC  20374-5023

The remaining portion of this document is divided into 4 Parts: Part I - Applicant’s Issues and Documentation, Part II - Summary of Service, Part III – Rationale for Decision and Pertinent Regulation/Law, Part IV - Information for the Applicant.
INDEX:  A6600/A9223/A9439