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

ex-HM3, USN
Docket No. ND04-00310

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20031210.  The Applicant requests the narrative reason for the separation be changed to Discharged.  The Applicant requests a documentary record 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 20040910.  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 narrative reason of the discharge shall not change.  The discharge shall remain: HONORABLE/ MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630620.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

1.  “This Misconduct is hindering my Job opportunities. I went through a treatment program and have not used since.  I came forward about my Marijuana use.  At the time I had just got back from the Desert Shield/Storm War.  I was also undergoing a divorce.  I received a bronze star for heroic achievement and hope this will be taken into consideration please.”

Documentation

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

The Morton Center, account ledger for Applicant, dated August 5, 2003 (2 pages)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	871030 - 880629	COG
	Active:   USN			880630 - 920618	HON

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  920619		Date of Discharge:  940914

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    02  02  26
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  22			Years Contracted:  3

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  42/52

Highest Rate:  HM3

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.96 (5)	Behavior:  3.92 (5)		OTA:  3.92

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  GCM, BSM, SASM (2 Bronze Stars), HSM, CAR, NDSM, SSDR, KLM, KLM (K), NUC

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

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

HONORABLE/MISCONDUCT, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630620.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

940615:	NAVHOSP Branch Clinic:  S: Patient is a self-referral.  Admitted verbally that with group of friends, he smoked marijuana in San Antonio, TX on 940605.  A:  Self referral for smoking marijuana.  Drug Dependency.  P: Zero drug tolerance in the Navy.  Process for administrative separation.  Patient is drug dependent.

940914:	DD Form 214: Applicant discharged honorable by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse; authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630620.

No discharge package available for review

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was honorably discharged on 19940914 for misconduct due to drug abuse (A).  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 (B and C).  The presumption of regularity of governmental affairs was applied by the Board in this case in the absence of a complete discharge package (D).

Issue 1.  There is credible evidence in the record that the Applicant used illegal drugs.  Drug abuse warranted processing for separation.  No other narrative reason more clearly describes the circumstances surrounding the Applicant’s processing for administrative separation.  Relief denied.

The Applicant’s discharge characterization accurately reflects his service to his country.  Normally, to permit relief, an inequity or impropriety must have existed during the period of enlistment in question.  No such inequity  or impropriety occurred during the Applicant’s enlistment.  Additionally, there is no law, or regulation, which provides that an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time, to enhance employment opportunities, or for good conduct in civilian life, subsequent to leaving the service.  However, the NDRB is authorized to consider outstanding post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge, 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.  Verifiable proof of any post-service accomplishments must be provided in order for the Applicant to claim post-service conduct and behavior as a reason to upgrade a less than Honorable discharge.  Evidence of continuing educational pursuits, employment record, documentation of community service, certification of non-involvement with civil authorities and credible evidence of a substance free lifestyle, are examples of verifiable documentation that may be provided to receive consideration for relief, based on post-service conduct.  The Applicant’s evidence of post-service conduct was found not to mitigate his misconduct sufficient to warrant an upgrade to his discharge.  Relief not warranted.

The Applicant is reminded that he remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of his discharge.  Representation at a personal appearance hearing is recommended but not required.  

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Navy Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 9/94, effective 
22 Jul 94 until 02 Oct 96, Article 3630620, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED MEMBERS BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT DUE TO DRUG ABUSE.

B.  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.

C.  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.

D.  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.  

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