DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB)
Docket No. ND05-00163
The application for discharge review was received on 20041103. The Applicant requests the
characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable or general
(under honorable conditions) and the reason for the discharge be changed to convenience of the
government. The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review. The Applicant did
not list any representative on the DD Form 293. In the acknowledgement letter, the Applicant
was informed that he was approaching the 15-year point for review by this Board and was
encouraged to attend a personal appearance hearing held at the Washington Navy Yard,
Washington, D.C. Applicant advised the Board he wanted to attend a personal appearance
hearing in the Washington D.C. area.
Subsequent to the application, the Applicant obtained representation by the American Legion.
A personal appearance hearing discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on
20051019. 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
character of the discharge shall not change. The discharge shall remain: UNDER OTHER
THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Misconduct – Drug abuse (Trafficking), authority:
NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630620.
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.
Docket No. ND05-00163
PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION
Issues, as stated
Issues submitted by the Applicant’s American Legion representative at the time of the Applicants
personal appearance hearing supersede those submitted originally on Form DD-293:
“1. (Propriety Issue) This former member avers that he originally enlisted for the nuclear
program. It was later discovered that he was not qualified due to color blindness and should have
2. (Equity Issue) This former member further opines that youth and immaturity contributed to
and extenuated his misconduct of record.
3. (Equity Issue) This former member finally requests that the Board consider provisions of
SECNAVINST 5420.174C, enclosure (1), Chapter 9, as it pertains to post-service conduct, in
assessing the merits of this application.”
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the
Applicant, was considered:
Applicant’s DD Form 214
Applicant’s Letter, undated
Character Reference Letter from J_ M_, dated October 11, 2005
Character Reference Letter from Senior Pastor P_ M. L_, dated September 6, 2005
Character Reference Letter from C_ H_, undated
Character Reference Letter from W_ L. A_. dated October 12, 2005
Character Reference Letter from K_ C_, dated April 17, 2003
Character Reference Letter from L_ C_, undated
Character Reference Letter from COL D_ N. E_, USA, dated October 11, 2005
Character Reference Letter from B_ T_ D_, dated October 14, 2005
Character Reference Letter from B_ R_, dated October 17, 2005
Applicant’s Resume (3 pages)
U.S. Xpress Enterprises, Inc. Employee Performance Appraisal 2004 (5 pages)
Applicant’s Pay Vouchers (4 pages)
Applicant’s Credit Report (9 pages)
Applicant’s Motivational Qualities Report
Docket No. ND05-00163
PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE
Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment: 860131 Date of Discharge: 891214
Length of Service (years, months, days):
Active: 03 03 13
Inactive: 00 07 02
Age at Entry: 18 Years Contracted: 8
Education Level: 12 AFQT: 67
Highest Rate: AZAN
Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):
Performance: 2.60 (3) Behavior: 2.60 (4) OTA: 2.46
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 – Drug abuse (Trafficking),
authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630620.
Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:
860902: Commenced 48 months of active duty under the TAR enlistment program.
880901: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: UA from 0730 to 0900, 880705.
Award: Forfeiture of $100.00 pay per month for 1 month, restriction and extra
duty for 45 days, reduction to E-2 (suspended for 6 months). No indication of
appeal in the record.
Docket No. ND05-00163
890714: Medical evaluation: Applicant evaluated for possible enuresis condition.
890728: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86, violation of UCMJ, Article 92.
Award: Forfeiture of $200.00 pay per month for 2 months, restriction to NAS
NOLA and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to E-2. No indication of appeal in
890729: Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (You are exhibiting a lack of
responsibility as evidenced by numerous incidents of tardiness, specifically you
failed to go to your appointed place of duty at the prescribed time on 7 May, 11
May, 13 May, 15 June, and 20 July, 1989. You are exhibiting a disregard for good
order and discipline as evidenced by your failure to obey a general order on two
occasions, and a lawful order by your superior Chief Petty Officer on another
occasion. You have been evaluated by USAF Medical Center Kessler, Department
of Mental Health and diagnosed with a Personality Disorder, Not Otherwise
Specified, severe, DSM III-R 301.90. This personality disorder had been manifested
by antisocial behavior, the sale and use of the drug “Ecstacy”, and tendencies toward
narcissism and somatization), notified of corrective actions and assistance available,
advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.
891013: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 80, violation of UCMJ, Article 86, violation
of UCMJ, Article 92, violation of UCMJ, Article 112a.
Award: Forfeiture of ½ pay per month for 2 months, restricted to NAS NOLA
and extra duty for 45 days, reduction in rate to the next inferior paygrade. No
indication of appeal in the record.
891013: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge by reason of pattern
of misconduct as evidenced by three non-judicial punishments within the current
enlistment, and by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse as evidenced by the
possession of a controlled substance with intent to transfer on a Naval Air Station.
Applicant notified that the least favorable characterization of service possible is
under other than honorable conditions.
Unknown: Applicant advised of rights and having elected to consult with counsel certified
under UCMJ Article 27(b), elected to waive all rights except the right to obtain
copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation.
891013: Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable
conditions by reason of pattern of misconduct as evidenced by three non-judicial
punishments within the current enlistment, and by reason of misconduct due to
drug abuse as evidenced by the possession of a controlled substance with intent to
transfer on a Naval Air Station.
Docket No. ND05-00163
891106: Applicant seen by command DAPA, no paperwork available. Drug screen,
0.010% ETOH, otherwise negative.
891108: Medical evaluation for drug and alcohol dependence: Applicant noted using
“ecstasy”, MMDA and other “uppers” in recent months as well as dealing in these
drugs. He has been involved with theses drugs for many months. Denies use or
dealing in cocaine, crack, heroin or other drugs. Applicant found psychologically
dependent on illicit drugs but not physically dependent. Illegal drugs are an
important part of the Applicant’s financial and social life. In all likelihood he will
progress to physical addiction. Applicant should be allowed the option of VA
rehabilitation in the future.
891205: CNMPC directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions
by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse (trafficking).
891208: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92, violation of UCMJ, Article 121.
Award: Forfeiture of $349.00 pay per month for 2 months, restricted to NAS
NOLA and extra duty for 45 days. No indication of appeal in the record.
891208: Applicant declined drug and alcohol treatment via the Veterans Administration.
891214: DD-214: Applicant discharged under other than honorable conditions by reason
of misconduct due to drug abuse (trafficking).
Docket No. ND05-00163
PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW
The Applicant was discharged on 19891214 under other than honorable conditions 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 Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental
Issue 1. The Applicant, through his representative, contends that his discharge was improper
because he should have been discharged once he was found to be unqualified for the nuclear
program due to colorblindness. The evidence of record indicates that the Applicant’s contract
was for enlistment into the TAR enlistment program including a guarantee for the “AZ” class A
school and contains no guarantees or references to the Applicant being enrolled in a nuclear
program. The evidence of record is further supported by the Applicant’s testimony to the Board.
The Applicant testified that his recruiter discussed with him the possibility of entering the
nuclear field but was quickly disqualified upon a MEPS examination revealing his
colorblindness. The Applicant conceded he signed no documentation guaranteeing him the
nuclear program, but also testified his recruiter implied to him that despite his disqualification,
he had already committed himself to the Navy.
There is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs. This presumption
permits the Board to presume that the government’s agents acted in good faith, proceeded within
the bounds of the law, and conformed their behavior to appropriate standards during the
Applicant’s enlistment, Naval service, and subsequent administrative processing. The Applicant
bears the burden of establishing his issues through the presentation of substantial and credible
evidence. There is no evidence in the record to support the contention that the Applicant ever
signed a contract guaranteeing him enrollment in any nuclear program. Likewise, the Applicant has
produced no evidence to support the contention that his recruiter improperly advised him he was
obligated to the Naval service prior to the formal signing of an enlistment contract . The
Applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity in this
case. Relief denied.
Issue 2. The Applicant contends his discharge was inequitable because of his youth and
immaturity at the time of service. The NDRB recognizes that serving in the U.S. Navy is
challenging. Our country is fortunate to have men and women willing to endure the hardships
and sacrifices required in order to serve their country. It must be noted most servicemembers
begin their service at a relatively young age. It must further be noted that despite their relative
youth and immaturity, the vast majority of these members of the Navy still serve honorably and
therefore earn their honorable discharges. In fairness to those members of the Navy,
commanders and separation authorities are tasked to ensure that undeserving Sailors receive no
higher characterization than is due. The NDRB found that the Applicant's service was equitably
characterized. Relief denied.
Docket No. ND05-00163
Issue 3. 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 Naval service. The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the
recharacterization of a discharge to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough
understanding of the Applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under
review. Examples of documentation that could be provided to the Board include proof of
educational pursuits, verifiable employment records, documentation of community service, and
certification of non-involvement with civil authorities. The Board received and considered all of
the Applicant’s submissions, including his numerous character references, his outstanding
employment and credit history, and his volunteer work with his local church. In making its
determination, the Board also considered the extent and seriousness of the Applicant’s
misconduct while on active duty, including his three nonjudicial punishments for violations of
UCMJ Articles 80, 86, 92, and 112a. Of special consideration was the Applicant’s own
admission to illegal drug trafficking for support of his own drug abuse. After careful and
deliberate consideration, the Board concluded the Applicant’s post-service achievements have
been insufficient to mitigate his misconduct while in the Naval service. Relief denied.
The following is provided for the edification of the Applicant. The Applicant has exhausted his
opportunities for review by the NDRB. The Applicant may, however, petition the Board for
Correction of Naval Records (BCNR), 2 Navy Annex, Washington, DC 20370-5100, concerning
a change in the characterization of naval service, if he desires further review of his case.
Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)
A. Navy Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560A), Change 6, effective 11 Jan 89 until 13
Jun 90, 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 V, Para 502, Propriety.
C. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review
Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part V, Para 503, Equity.
D. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review
Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part II, Para 211, Regularity of Government Affairs.
Docket No. ND05-00163
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
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