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

Docket No. ND03-00031

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

ex-OS3, USN
Docket No. ND03-00031

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 20021002, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable.  The applicant requested a documentary record discharge 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 20030828.  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, as submitted

1.  My discharge was inequitable because I 

To the Board,

I feel in my behalf that my discharge was improper when I extended my time through the deployment of 2000.  My wife and I discussed after this that I would make it a career in the US Navy.  But I was blamed for something that I hadn't done.  I had my leadership and professional skills taken away from me because the very first female Commanding Officer of a Combatant ship wasn't going to support me or investigate further into my charge.  My rank was lowered and I was confined and humiliated in front of friends and shipmates that looked up to me.

I would like to see if my discharge could be changed from dishonorable to honorable because of my courage, honor, and loyalty that I showed to my peers and employers the entire 4 years in the service.  After the trial, my witnesses that are officers and petty officers in charge, lost faith in the leadership of a female captain, just because she had something to prove.  I fully understand the zero tolerance and live by it, but she wouldn't even trust three of her lieutenants, two lieutenant jg, one senior chief, my leading petty officer, and two enlisted personal that were on the ship longer than me and trusted me with there life.  All I request for is my charge to be overturned and receive all my benefits that I think I'm entitled to.

Thank you for your time,

Documentation

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

Letter to Congressman, dated June 23, 2002 (2 copies)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	960320 - 960520	COG
	Active:   None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  960521		Date of Discharge:  000804

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    04  02  14
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  19			Years Contracted:  4 (5 months extension)

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  65

Highest Rate:  OS2

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  4.50 (2)	Behavior:  4.50 (2)		OTA:  4.15

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  GCM, AFEM, SSDR, Letter of Commendation

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:

960523:	You are being retained in the Naval service, despite your fraudulent induction as evidenced by your failure to disclose required basic enlistment eligibility information.  This decision is based on the information you provided the Recruit Quality Assurance Interviewer and if it is found that additional information has not been disclosed, this waiver is void and you could be subject to other judicial or administrative proceedings, ie., speeding, 9/94 paid $236, fix it ticket, 10/94, show proof of repair.

000403:	NAVDRUGLAB, San Diego, CA, reported applicant’s urine sample, received 000328, tested positive for amphetamine/methamphetamine.

000616:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 112A: Wrongful use of controlled substance.
	Award: Restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to OS3.  No indication of appeal in the record.

000620:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.

000620:	Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights except the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation.

000620:	Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse (use).  Commanding Officer’s comments (verbatim): OS2 (Applicant) has violated Navy regulations by his use of methamphetamine.  Due to his admitted use of a controlled substance OS2 (Applicant) is incapable of further service.  OS2 (Applicant) should be separated from the Navy with an Other than Honorable discharge due to his drug use.

000724:	COMNAVSURPAC 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 20000804 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, the Board determined that this issue has no merit.  The Applicant states that he was blamed for something that he had not done and he wants his discharge upgraded because of the courage, honor and loyalty that he showed his peers and employers the entire 4 years of his military service.  The Applicant was found guilty at NJP for use of illegal drugs.  His urine sample tested positive for amphetamines/ methamphetamines.  Drug abuse requires mandatory processing for separation.  The discharge was proper and equitable.  Relief denied.

The following is provided for the edification of the Applicant.  Normally, to permit relief, an error or inequity must have occurred during the period of enlistment in question.  No errors or inequities were discovered during a review of the Applicant’s enlistment.  The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge.  However, 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 the civilian life subsequent to leaving the service.  Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent that such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant's performance and conduct during the period of service under review can be considered.  Examples of documentation to provide to the Board for consideration include verification of educational pursuits, verifiable employment record(s), documentation of community service, certification of non-involvement with civil authorities, and credible evidence of a substance free lifestyle.  At this time, the applicant has not provided any documentation for the Board to consider.  Therefore, no relief will be granted.

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 additional documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments 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), Change 27, effective 27 March 2000 - 11 Feb 2001, 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: