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

ex-AA, USNR
Docket No. ND05-00643

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20050302.  The Applicant requests the 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 list any representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20050616.  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 4-1 that the character of the discharge shall not change.  The discharge shall remain: UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630620.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

1. “I was discharged from the US Navy on July 19, 1994, under other than honorable conditions.  Having recognized that I had made a commitment to serve my country, I enlisted in the California Army National Guard for a period of 6 years.  I was released form the National Guard on April 28, 2003, with an honorable discharge.”

Documentation

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

Applicant’s DD Form 214
Report of Separation and Record of Service from Army National Guard of California
Army National Guard Honorable Discharge Certificate
Statement from Applicant dated April 11, 2005  (2 pages)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: None
	Active:   None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  920617		Date of Discharge:  940719

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    01  09  22
	Inactive:  00  03  11

Age at Entry:  17			Years Contracted:  8

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  44

Highest Rate:  AN

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.70 (2)		Behavior:  3.40 (2)		OTA:  3.70

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NDSM

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 3630620.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

920928:	Ordered to active duty for 2 years under the Airman Apprenticeship program.

940225:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 112a: Wrongfully use anabolic steroid a schedule III controlled substance, on or about 940114.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $467.00 pay per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to E-2.  No indication of appeal in the record.

940305:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse as evidenced by all drug incidents in your current enlistment.

940305:	Applicant advised of rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge Board.

940413:	An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence and by unanimous vote, found that the Applicant had committed misconduct due to a commission of a serious offense and misconduct due to drug abuse, that the misconduct warranted separation, and recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions.

940426:	Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse (use).  Commanding Officer’s comments (verbatim): AA G___ was well aware of the Navy’s zero drug policy.  He willingly admitted that he had used anabolic steroids for the purpose of body building, but contends that it was a one time incident that will never be repeated.  He received the maximum sentence during Captain’s Mast on 25 February 1994, and to that extent, he has been fully punished.  Although the Command concurs with the Board’s intent, I recommend that AA G___ be retained in the naval service and allowed to complete his obligated service.      

940622:	BUPERS directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse (use), without suspension.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19940719 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to drug abuse (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).

Issue 1.  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 award of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for illegal drug use, thus substantiating the misconduct for which he was separated.  Regulations limit the Board’s review to a determination on the propriety and equity of the discharge.  In the Applicant’s case, the Board could discern no impropriety or inequity and therefore consider his discharge proper and equitable.  Relief denied.

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 civilian life, subsequent to leaving the service.  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.  The Board was impressed with the Applicant’s service to the country and the state of California through his service in the Army National Guard.  However, after a complete review of the entire record, including the evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board determined that his discharge was appropriate and that his evidence of post-service conduct was found not to mitigate the conduct for which he was discharged.  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.  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 5/93, effective 
05 Mar 93 until 21 Jul 94, Article 3630620, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED MEMBERS BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT DUE TO DRUG ABUSE.

B.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part II, AUTHORITY/POLICY FOR DEPARTMENTAL DISCHARGE REVIEW.

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