Author: CAP
Last saved by: shirley.robertson
Company: NCPB

Docket No. ND04-00017

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

ex-ABH3 USN
Docket No. ND04-00017

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20031001.  The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable.  The Applicant requests a personal appearance discharge review before a traveling panel closest to Phoenix, Arizona.  The Applicant did not list any representative on the DD Form 293.  In the acknowledgement letter, the Applicant was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) does not travel; all hearings are held in the Washington DC area.  The NDRB also advised that the board first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20040628.  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 considered 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)/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-146, formerly Article 3630620.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

1.  “Dear Sir or Madam:

I am asking that the Naval Council Board reconsider the Discharge that I received on May 29, 2001.  This information is based on the responsibility and handling of my Drug Screen and the transcribed Sworn Testimonies from Character Witnesses that were conducted at my Administrative Board.

A Urine Toxic screen is a useful and reliable tool in determining drug use patterns, only, if it is interpreted using appropriate procedures.  Once my specimen left the collection site the Chain of Custody records become almost non-existent.  At my Administrative Discharge Hearing the records from the Collection Site where present as well as the records from the Courier.  However, the Laboratory records were absent.  It is my understanding that a laboratory must maintain records to assure the integrity of the samples maintained in the Laboratory and that those results are correct.

I would like the Board to also reanalyze this information.  I also respectfully request that the Board reanalyze my Characterization of Military Service based on the “quality of service” that I provided to my country in accordance with the standards of Acceptable Conduct, and Performance of duty that is outlined in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, directives and regulations.

I am requesting to appear in front of a Travel Panel, in the State of Arizona.  Please give me the opportunity to show the Board that Misconduct was not committed, and that I am a hard working, law abiding citizen that does not and has not abused ANY substances.  If the Board will not see me here in Arizona I am willing to travel to Washington DC to have my case looked at.

Since my enlistment in the United States Navy, I have stated, and will continue to state that I have NOT knowingly or willing used narcotics of any sort, and it appalls me that the United States Navy is under the assumption that I have.

Today, I am a full time student at Mesa Community College, carrying at 3.8 Grade Point Average.  I have been accepted to Arizona State University next year to pursue a Bachelors Degree in Administration of Criminal Justice.  Last year I completed Paralegal Training through Lamson College in Scottsdale, Arizona.  I am currently employed in the legal field and have been since my move to Phoenix, in May of 2001.  In my spare time I train young horses and work with my own.  I am also looking at attending Law School in 2006.  Until then, I would like to stay in the legal field, or get hired on with Child Protective Services.  It will be hard for me to achieve these goals with having a General Under Honorable Condition Discharge.  If given another opportunity I would like to join the Reserves to dedicate the time in serving our great country.

Please give me the opportunity to meet with the Traveling Board and present additional information at the time of my Board.  If you have any further questions please don’t hesitate to contact me @ (Applicant's telephone number deleted).”

Sincerely,

K_ C_ (Applicant)

Documentation

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

Applicant’s DD Form 214 (Member 4 and Member 1)
Applicant’s college transcript
Letter of Employment dated, October 20, 2003 from Skousen, Skousen, Gulbrandsen, and Patience, p.c.
Letter of Employment dated, October 24, 2003 from Pew & Lake, P.L.C.
Character reference from D_ C_ (Applicant’s mother), dated October 22, 2003.
Character reference from R_ C_ (Applicant’s father), dated October 23, 2003.
Character reference from J_ G_, dated October 21, 2003.
Character reference from K_ F_, dated October 21, 2003.
Character reference from J_ W_, dated October 20, 2003.
Applicants grades from Mesa Community College, (2pages)
Classes for Mesa Community College for fall semester.
Applicant’s admittance letter to Arizona State University (2 pages)
Letter from Commanding Officer D_ C_ dated, August 1, 1999
Information about drug testing (4 pages)
Military women “Firsts” (5 pages)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	970418 - 970622	COG
	Active:   USN			None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  970623		Date of Discharge:  010525

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    03  11  03
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  20			Years Contracted:  4 

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  42

Highest Rate:  ABH2

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  4.62 (8)	Behavior:  5.00 (8)		OTA:  3.81

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  AFEM, SSDR, NER, NUC, MUC, GCM

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

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

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

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

010209:	NAVDRUGLAB, San Diego, CA, reported Applicant’s urine sample, received 010111, tested positive for methamphetamine.

010308:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.

010308:	Applicant advised of rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge Board.

010425:	An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence and by unanimous vote, found that the Applicant had committed misconduct due to drug abuse, that the misconduct warranted separation, and recommended discharge general (under honorable conditions).

010605:	Commanding Officer recommended discharge general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse (use).  Commanding Officer’s comments:  ABH3 C_ (Applicant) was processed for misconduct-drug abuse and was discharged with a general (under honorable condition) discharge on 25 May 2001.  

Discharge package incomplete.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20010525 general (under honorable conditions) for misconduct due to drug abuse (A). In the absence of a complete discharge package, the Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (B) and, after a thorough review of the available records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, found that the discharge was proper and equitable (C and D).

Issue I. There is credible evidence in the record that the Applicant used illegal drugs. 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’s contentions, that she did not use drugs and that administrative errors were made in handling her sample are not sufficient to overturn the presumption of regularity in the case. The evidence of record does not demonstrate that the Applicant was not responsible for her conduct or that she should not be held accountable for her actions. Relief denied.

When the service of a member of U.S. Navy has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service as honorable. A General Under Honorable Conditions discharge is warranted when significant negative member’s conduct or performance of duty outweigh the positive aspects of the member’s military record. The Applicant’s service was marred by use of illegal drugs. The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflects her 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 her characterization of service. Relief is not warranted.

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. Personal appearance hearings are conducted at the Washington Navy Yard, DC only.  The NDRB does not travel.  At the personal appearance hearing, the Applicant can provide documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments or any other evidence related to her 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), Change 31, dated 20 Feb 01, effective 12 Feb 2001 until 15 Jul 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: