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

 ex ASMAA, USN
Docket No. ND97-01330

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 970210, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable.  The applicant requested a documentary discharge review, he listed no representative on his DD Form 293.  On 970327, the applicant provided a personal letter to the board in it selecting the American Legion as his representative.  A documentary review was conducted on 970331, prior to receiving representation from the American legion.  The case was re-opened under the Board’s own motion on 970902.

Summary of Review

A second documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 980831.  The NDRB determined that the discharge equitably reflects the quality of service rendered.  The discharge shall remain UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL)/ALCOHOL ABUSE REHABILITATION FAILURE; authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630550.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES (verbatim)

1.  (EQUITY ISSUE) His violations of the UCMJ notwithstanding, this former member opines that his otherwise creditable service, including his above average evaluation markings, is sufficient to warrant a fully honorable discharge.

2.  (EQUITY ISSUE) This former member further requests that the Board include provisions of SECNAVINST 5420.174C, enclosure (1), Chapter 9, as it pertains to post-service conduct, in assessing the merits of his application.

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:  	None
	Inactive:	USNR (DEP)		870710 – 880707 	ELS
USNR (DEP) 		880708 – 880724 	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  880725			Date of Discharge:  910628

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:  	02  11  04
	Inactive:  	None

Age at Entry:  18				Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12				AFQT:  42

NEC:  ASM-0000  				Highest Rate:  ASMAA

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.60 (2)	Behavior:  3.10 (2)		OTA:  3.30

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NDSM 

Nonjudicial Punishment(s):  1		Court(s)-Martial:  None

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge:

UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL)/ ALCOHOL ABUSE REHABILITATION FAILURE; authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630550.

PART III - CHRONOLOGICAL LISTING OF SIGNIFICANT SERVICE EVENTS1

870709:	Signed DD Form 1966 acknowledging that he had used drugs prior to his service but would not abuse any illegal drugs or controlled substances while in the service of his country.

880707:	Applicant administratively separated with an uncharacterized Entry Level Separation.  A total of 365 days have passed since the beginning of the DEP period (Expiration of DEP period).

880708:	Signed DD Form 1966 acknowledging that he had used drugs prior to his service but would not abuse any illegal drugs or controlled substances while in the service of his country.

880725:	Joined Recruit Training Center, San Diego, CA. 

880727:	Applicant certified he had read and understood all of the information contained in the Navy "Drug Abuse Statement of Understanding".  Specifically, the consequences of illicit drug use, effects of drug and alcohol abuse on discipline and combat readiness, consequences of drug trafficking, physical and psychological effects of drugs and alcohol abuse, and the Navy’s urinalysis screening program.  Applicant acknowledged receipt.

880822:	Applicant acknowledged experimental use of marijuana.

880822:	Drug waiver (marijuana) granted.

881002:	Joined Fleet Combat Training Center Atlantic, Dam Neck, VA.

881130:	Applicant dropped from guaranteed training OS “A” school for academic        reasons and was reassigned to ASM “A” school.

890504:	Joined AIMD, NAS Miramar, CA.

890810:	NAS Miramar Branch Clinic:  19 year old AMSAA with public drunkenness.  Family history alcoholism. Recommended for LEVEL II.  Concur with Alcohol abuse, at risk for alcoholism.  Concur with LEVEL II recommendation.

891006:	Applicant completed Level II treatment (EXTRACTED FROM CO’S LETTER 910424).

900131:	Applicant acknowledged Enlisted Performance Evaluation Report for the period 890405 to 900131 containing adverse comments.

900202:	NAS Miramar Branch Clinic: Patient brought by EMT’s for eval after falling down some stairs at barracks in Miramar.  Not witnessed, positive ETOH – on breath. Assessment/diagnosis: Alcohol Abuse.   

900217:	NAS Miramar Branch Clinic: Patient presents with LCPO for Competence for Duty Exam – suspected intoxication, admits to drinking period of 1930 to 0130 - beers, not sure how many.  Diagnosed as 
“not fit for duty”, SIQ 24 hours, follow-up 0800 on 18 Feb 90.

900218:	NAS Miramar Branch Clinic: 19 year Caucasian male instructed to return for competence for duty.  Patient seen 2/17 for competency for duty – overslept his shift due to ETOH intoxication, patient sent SIQ for 24 hours, last drink 30 hrs ago, denies drug abuse.  Diagnosis – fit for duty.

900409:	CAAC evaluation conducted, recommended administrative separation due to alcohol abuse rehabilitation failure.
 
900419:	NJP for violations of UCMJ, Article 86 (2 specs): Spec 1 - Unauthorized absence without authority on or about 0700, 90FEB17 until on or about 1000, 90FEB17; Spec 2 – Unauthorized absence without authority  on or about 90MAR23; 
Article 134, (2 specs):  Spec 1 -wrongful previous overindulgence in intoxicating liquor or drugs, incapacitated for the proper performance of duties on or about 90FEB17; Spec 2 - wrongfully communicate a threat to kill on or about 90FEB15.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $350 per month for 2 months, extra duties for 30 days, restriction to NAS Miramar for 45 days, reduction to ASMAR.  No indication of appeal in the record.

900625:	NAS Miramar Branch Medical Clinic:  Patient hit a sign while frustrated trying to keep friend from drinking and driving.  Patient smells of ETOH at present.  Complained of pain to medial hand.  Denies numbness or tingling to fingers.  Patient was at E-M club when incident happened.

900813:	NAS Miramar Branch Medical Clinic:  20 year old active duty male here for medical eval.  Member has no idea why his is here or what the reason for interview is.  Member had CAAC eval 9 April 90 which recommended admin separation for treatment failure.  No withdrawal,  Patient relates 2-4 beers a week.  No blackout/DUI since Apr 90.  29 June 90 ETOH related injury and fit for duty exam.  Relates attend AA one time a week.  ETOH Abuse by history, follow/up with command, no ETOH treatment indicated at this time.

900823:	Naval Hospital San Diego, CA: First NHSD psychiatry admission for this 20 year old ASAN with 3 years of continuous active duty admitted in context of suicidal ideation and sitting in third floor window.   Impression is alcohol abuse/dependence, in need of treatment and adjustment disorder.  Axis I:  1) Alcohol dependence, 2) Life circumstances problems; Axis II:  Passive Aggressive traits; 
Axis III:  Psoriasis.  
Recommendation:  1 – fit for duty, 2 – responsible for actions, 3 – low risk for self harm in absence of alcohol use, 4 – administrative separation as alcohol treatment failure, 5 – meds antabuse, 6 – follow-up treatment through VA upon discharge, 7 – at least 3 AA meeting per week, and 8 – command aware of above recommendations.

901016:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under honorable conditions (general) by reason of alcohol abuse rehabilitation failure and misconduct due to commission of a serious offense.

901016:  	Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to retain all rights.  Applicant objected to the separation.  Receipt acknowledged.

910222:	Applicant made the following sworn testimony:  “I was brought up in a very small and quiet midwest town in which everyone basically knew each other.  My family and I are rather close.  My father and I are especially very close.  In fact, everyone says that we are exactly alike.  He was in the Navy during Vietnam.  He raised me to be in the military, was very strict, never let up and kept me on my toes.  I graduated from high school with average grades.  I joined the Navy to learn a trade and show my father I was more like him than he thought.  I have always tried to model myself and my life after my father and his family.  They were all in the military, all were leaders and are now considerably successful businessmen with happy families.   I know that I have a drinking disorder.  When I drink with friends and around a lot of people I drink to excess and end up doing things that are stupid.  I started drinking when my first wife left me.  I did not know how to handle her leaving, so I started going to the club for something to do and drinking helped me to relax.  Drinking seemed to take away all my problems.  One night I went to the Club with my so called friends.  I started to have a few drinks and up till 9:30 p.m. is al I remember.  The next morning I was five minutes late for duty and smelled of alcohol.  They sent me to medical and found me unfit for duty.  About three weeks later they told me I have threatened my girlfriend.  She was not even at that the club that evening. That evening I was at the Club with a civilian friend of mine who was a bouncer at the Club.  I had been drinking and I was really upset because I had gotten into a fight with my girlfriend.  We were talking about it and of course it just brought up more anger.  I told him in my exact words “Killing her would be good for her and killing myself would make her happy”.  My friend went back and told my girlfriend.  She called her father immediately and he called the Executive Officer of the Base.  I went to Mast for that.  The Captain found me guilty of the offense.  I had no intention of hurting my girlfriend or myself and just made that statement out of frustration and anger.  I would never hurt anyone.  The first alcohol related incident after Level II was with a stop sign.  I had gone to the Club with a couple of friends from work and a friend that lived off base.  We had been drinking heavily.  One of my friends decided he was going to drive home.  I felt he was in no condition to drive so I tried to stop him and we got into an argument.  I got real frustrated with him, lost my temper and instead of hitting him I hit a stop sign.  I was sent to medical for that because I had injured my hand.  That is when I failed Level II.  I am now married and very happy.  I feel I have overcome my drinking problem with the help of my wife.  I would really like to stay in the navy and make it a career.  This statement was written before the latest incident.  I had driven down to the club with a friend of mine to pick up some more people to come over to a party at my house.  I had been working with Special Agent C_ from NIS and Petty Officer R_ for Security on drug problems on the base while I was on restriction and afterward.  Most of this work was done while I was on restriction, because of the drugs that were going through the restricted barracks.  That evening at the club I saw someone that I was supposed to get in contact with and see what kind of drugs were going through the base.  I was a little intoxicated and took it a little too far and now realize I shouldn’t have done that.  The manager of the Club asked me to leave and I got belligerent with the manager and base security.  I was taken down to security and they contacted my command to come pick me up.  My wife was called to come pick me up and take me home.  Obviously I have not overcome my drinking problem.  During all this time I feel I was in denial.  At this point I don’t feel I am still in denial.  The very first step to starting a recovery program is admitting that you have a problem and I do admit that I have a problem with drinking.  This means that I can never drink again and will always be an alcoholic. At the time I saw the medical doctor I stated that I just wanted to get out of the navy because at that time I was drinking heavily, my previous wife had left me and I just felt that I wasn’t worth anything to anyone so I might as well get out of the Navy.  But since then I don’t feel that way and do enjoy being in the Navy.  Neither my mother nor father are alcoholics.  I have always known that I had a problem with alcohol but it was always hard to admit that to myself.  Probably within the last two weeks is when I finally admitted to myself that I had this problem and feel that I need more extensive treatment for my problem of alcohol and am willing to go through a more extensive treatment program.  I feel that I could be a real asset to my workcenter if I am allowed to stay in the Navy because my performance and knowledge of my rate is excellent.

910222:	Administrative Discharge Board convened.  By unanimous vote, based upon a preponderance of the evidence, found that the applicant is an alcohol abuse rehabilitation failure, and had not committed misconduct due to commission of serious offense.  The Board recommended that the applicant be separated from the naval service by reason of alcohol abuse rehabilitation failure, and that the separation be suspended for twelve (12) months.  The Board recommended that the discharge be a general discharge and that the applicant be sent through Level III treatment.

910409:	NAS Miramar Branch Medical Clinic: 20 year old male referred for dependency evaluation from command DAPA and CAAC.  Applicant diagnosed as dependent and is amenable to counseling/treatment.  Since applicant attended Level II in Oct 89, recommendation: if command desires to retain individual, applicant be transferred to Alcohol Rehabilitation Center for inpatient treatment (Level  III) if eligible for treatment.  If command does not desire to retain/cannot retain, applicant   be administratively separated via the VA for dependency treatment.  

910424:	Commanding officer recommended discharge under honorable conditions (general) by reason of alcohol abuse rehabilitation failure and misconduct due to commission of a serious offense.  Commanding officer’s verbatim comments:  “ASMAA (Applicant) completed Level II treatment on 6 October 1989.  On 9 April 1990 AA (Applicant) was interviewed at the Counseling and Assistance Center due to being late for work, drunk in a duty status and disobeying a direct order on 17 February 1990.  On 19 April 1990, AA (Applicant) received Non Judicial Punishment for theses and other offenses.  CAAC recommended that he be administratively separated from the naval service for alcohol rehabilitation failure.  Since then he has had three more alcohol related incidents (25 June 1990, 23 August 1990 and 15 February 1991).  See exhibits (17) and (21) of enclosure (7).  At the Administrative Board hearing held on 22 February 1991, the board members recommended that the General Discharge be suspended for 12 months and that AA (Applicant) attend Level III treatment.  AA (Applicant) has clearly demonstrated a propensity for alcohol related misconduct on numerous occasions during his short tenure with the Navy.  He has absolutely no potential for future useful service and would be a drain on limited financial and manpower assets.  He has been given ample opportunity to correct his behavior and has not done so.  It is my strong recommendation that he be separated from the Naval Service immediately through the Veterans Hospital with a General Discharge.”  

910518:	BUPERS directed the applicant discharged with a characterization of general by reason of alcohol abuse rehabilitation failure.

910605:	Applicant offered but declined in-patient Veterans Administration treatment.

910628:	Discharged UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL)/ ALCOHOL ABUSE REHABILITATION FAILURE; authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630550.

970331:	Documentary Review conducted.  Docket number ND97-00513.  Determined the separation was proper and equitable, and shall remain as issued.

RECORDER’S NOTES:

1  The source for all entries is the service record (includes medical/dental record) unless otherwise noted.

 PART IV - EXTRACT OF PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

A.  The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C, effective 15 Jun 87 - 15 Aug 91), Article 3630550, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL BY REASON OF ALCOHOL ABUSE REHABILITATION FAILURE states:

1.  Basis

a.  A member who has been referred by their commanding officer to a formal program of rehabilitation for personal alcohol abuse, per OPNAVINST 5350.4, may be separated for failure, through inability or refusal to participate in, cooperate in, or successfully complete such a program in the following circumstances:

(1)  There is a lack of potential for continued naval service; or

(2)  Long-term rehabilitation is determined necessary and the member is transferred to a civilian medical facility for rehabilitation.

b.  Nothing in this article precludes separation under any other provision of this manual, in appropriate cases, of a member who has been referred to such a program.  Dual/multiple processing is required if the member is eligible for separation by reason of misconduct, misconduct due to drug abuse, and/or homosexuality.

2.  Characterization.  Type warranted by service record (honorable or general) or Entry Level Separation as specified in MILPERSMAN 3610300.

3.  Procedures

a.  The Notification Procedure (MILPERSMAN 3640200) shall be used.

b.  Request the member execute a signed Statement of Awareness and Request for or Waiver of Rights after their receipt of the Notice of Notification Procedure Proposed Action.

c.  Forward processed cases by letter of transmittal to Commander, Naval Military Personnel Command (NMPC-83).  Ensure member's full name, rate, and SSN have been indicated on each page of the case.  Refer to NAVMILPERSCOMINST 1910.1 for message submission option.

B.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 9, STANDARDS FOR DISCHARGE REVIEW, states, in part:

“9.2 Propriety of the Discharge

a.  A discharge shall be deemed to be proper unless, in the course of discharge review, it is determined that: 

(1) There exists an error of fact, law, procedure, or discretion associated with the discharge at the time of issuance; and that the rights of the applicant were prejudiced thereby (such error shall constitute prejudicial error if there is substantial doubt that the discharge would have remained the same if the error had not been made); or

(2) A change in policy by the military service of which the applicant was a member, made expressly retroactive to the type of discharge under consideration, requires a change in the discharge.

b.  When a record associated with the discharge at the time of issuance involves a matter in which the primary responsibility for corrective action rests with another organization (for example, another Board, agency, or court), the NDRB will recognize an error only to the extent that the error has been corrected by the organization with primary responsibility for correcting the record.

c.  The primary function of the NDRB is to exercise its discretion on issues of equity by reviewing the individual merits of each application on a case-by-case basis.  Prior decisions in which the NDRB exercised its discretion to change a discharge based on issues of equity (including the factors cited in such decisions or the weight given to factors in such decisions) do not bind the NDRB in its review of subsequent cases because no two cases present the same issues of equity.

d.  The following applies to applicants who received less than fully honorable administrative discharges because of their civilian misconduct while in an inactive duty status in a reserve component and who were discharged or had their discharge reviewed on or after April 20, 1971:  the NDRB shall either recharacterize the discharge to Honorable without any additional proceedings or additional proceedings shall be conducted in accordance with the Court’s Order of December 3, 1981, in Wood v. Secretary of Defense to determine whether proper grounds exist for the issuance of a less than honorable discharge, taking into account that:

(1) An other than honorable (formerly undesirable) discharge for an inactive duty reservist can only be based upon civilian misconduct found to have affected directly the performance of military duties;

(2) A general discharge for an inactive duty reservist can only be based upon civilian misconduct found to have had an adverse impact on the overall effectiveness of the military, including military morale and efficiency.”

C. SECNAVINST 5420.174C, enclosure (1), Manual for Discharge Review 1984, Chapter 9, Standards for Discharge Review, paragraph 9.3, Equity of the Discharge, states, in part, that a discharge shall be deemed to be equitable unless in the course of a discharge review, it is determined that relief is warranted based upon consideration of the applicant's service record and other evidence presented to the NDRB viewed in conjunction with the factors listed in this paragraph and the regulations under which the applicant was discharged, even though the discharge was determined to have been otherwise equitable and proper at the time of issuance.  Areas of consideration include, but are not limited to:

1.  Quality of service, as evidenced by factors such as:

a.  service history, including date of enlistment, period of enlistment, highest rank achieved, conduct and proficiency ratings (numerical and narrative);

b.  awards and decorations;

c.  letters of commendation or reprimand;

d.  combat service;

e.  wounds received in action;

f.  records of promotions and demotions;

g.  level of responsibility at which the applicant served;

h.  other acts of merit that may not have resulted in formal recognitions through an award or commendation;

i.  length of service during the service period that is the subject of the discharge review;

j.  prior military service and type of discharge received or outstanding post-service conduct to the extent that such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the performance of the applicant during the period of service which is the subject of the discharge review;

k.  convictions by court-martial;

l.  records of nonjudicial punishment;

m.  convictions by civil authorities while a member of the service, reflected in the discharge proceedings or otherwise noted in the service records;

n.  records of periods of unauthorized absence;

o.  records relating to a discharge in lieu of court-martial.

2.  Capability to serve, as evidenced by factors such as:

a.  Total capabilities.  This includes an evaluation of matters such as age, educational level, and aptitude scores.  Consideration may also be given as to whether the individual met normal military standards of acceptability for military service and similar indicators of an individual's ability to serve satisfactorily, as well as ability to adjust to military service.

b.  Family and personal problems.  This includes matters in extenuation or mitigation of the reason for discharge that may have affected the applicant's ability to serve satisfactorily.

c.  Arbitrary or capricious actions.  This includes actions by individuals in authority which constitute a clear abuse of such authority and that, although not amounting to prejudicial error, may have contributed to the decision to discharge the individual or unduly influence the characterization of service.

d.  Discrimination.  This includes unauthorized acts as documented by records or other evidence.

PART V - RATIONALE FOR DECISION

Discussion

	After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents1, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board determined that the characterization of the applicant’s service is equitable.  The discharge shall remain: UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL)/ALCOHOL ABUSE REHABILITATION FAILURE; authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630550.

	The applicant was discharged on 910628 under honorable conditions (general) by reason of alcohol rehabilitation failure (A, Part IV).  On 890810, the applicant was diagnosed as an alcohol abuser and recommended for Level II alcohol rehabilitation treatment.  On 891006, he completed Level II treatment.  On 900202, the applicant was brought to the NAS Miramar branch clinic due to an incident at the barracks, assessment was alcohol abuse.  On 900217, the applicant was taken to the NAS Miramar branch clinic for a competency for duty evaluation, he admitted to drinking an unknown quantity of alcohol.  He was diagnosed as “not fit for duty” due to ETOH intoxication.  On 900409, CAAC counseling conducted, recommended an administrative separation due to alcohol rehabilitation failure.  On 900419, the applicant was awarded nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) Article 86; 2 specifications of unauthorized absence (UA) and Article 134; wrongful previous over indulgence in intoxicating liquor, incapacitated for the proper performance of duties and wrongfully communicating a threat.  On 900625, the applicant was taken to the NAS Miramar branch clinic due to an incident at the E-M club, applicant smelled of ETOH.  On 900823, the applicant was evaluated by the psychiatric unit at Naval Hospital San Diego, CA., where he was diagnosed with alcohol dependence, life circumstances problems, passive aggressive traits and psoriasis.  The medical officer recommended administrative separation due to alcohol abuse rehabilitation failure.  

On 901016, the applicant was advised of proposed separation and was afforded the opportunity to exercise all of the rights of law, regulation, and custom to which he was entitled.  He chose not to consult with counsel and elected to retain all rights.  On 910202, an Administrative Discharge Board was convened, by unanimous vote, based upon a preponderance of the evidence, found that the applicant was an alcohol abuse rehabilitation failure, and had not committed misconduct due to commission of serious offense.  The Board recommended that the applicant be separated from the naval service with a characterization of under honorable conditions (general) by reason of alcohol abuse rehabilitation failure that the separation be suspended for twelve (12) months, and the applicant be sent through Level III treatment.  On 910424, the applicant’s commanding officer recommended discharge under honorable conditions (general) by reason of alcohol abuse rehabilitation failure and misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.  On 910518, BUPERS directed the applicant be discharged under honorable conditions (general) by reason of alcohol abuse rehabilitation failure.  On 910605, the applicant was offered but declined in-patient Veteran Administration alcohol abuse rehabilitation treatment.  The discharge and characterization were consistent with Navy policy and standards of discipline, and were proper and equitable (B and C, Part IV).

In the applicant’s first issue, his representative states “His violations of the UCMJ not withstanding, this former member opines that his otherwise creditable service, including his above average evaluation markings, is sufficient to warrant a fully honorable discharge.”  This issue implies a permissive doctrine whereby one in the military, in light of good service, is allotted misdeeds without penalty or stigma, regardless of how notorious the offense.  There is no precedent, within this Board’s review, for minimizing or removing the misconduct of record.  The general characterization is appropriate when service has been honest and faithful but significant negative aspects of the member's conduct or performance of duty outweigh positive aspects of the member's service record.  In this case, the long history of alcohol abuse and involvement with authorities (to include several alcohol related incidents); constituted conduct and performance that was contrary to the good order and discipline required by the Naval Service.  No relief is warranted.

In the applicant’s second issue, his representative states “This former member further requests that the Board include provisions of SECNAVINST 5420.174C, enclosure (1), Chapter 9, as it pertains to post-service conduct, in assessing the merits of his application.”   The Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge (C, Part IV).  While it is true the applicant cannot go back and undo his prior mistakes, he does have the opportunity to contribute in a positive way to society and warrant clemency.  Those contributions that would be looked upon favorably by this, or any other Board, include educational pursuits, employment track record, being a contributing member of society and making a positive impact in the community through volunteer work.  The applicant must prove that his post-service conduct has been above reproach and he is making a valid attempt at making amends for the misconduct he committed during the period of service under review.  In this case, the applicant must provide documentation that he has received treatment for his alcohol abuse, has remained sober, and has had no further alcohol incidents with civilian authorities. 

The 15 year window during which applicants may appeal their discharges was established to allow time for establishing oneself in the community and for making these substantial, documented life style changes and community contributions.  At this time the applicant has provided no documentation of good character and conduct to warrant an upgrade.  The applicant is reminded that he remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing provided that an application is received within 15 years from the date of discharge.

Recorder’s NoteS:

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

Copies of four Character witness statements.
	  Copy of Applicant’s DD Form 214.
	  Applicant’s letter of Mar 27, 1997.
	  Copy of NDRB’s decision of 21 Apr 1997.	

PART VI - INFORMATION FOR THE APPLICANT

Decision

The 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 HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL)/ALCOHOL ABUSE REHABILITATION FAILURE; authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630550.

	The Board noted administrative errors on the original DD-214.  Block 24 should read: UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL).  The DD-214 should be reissued or corrected as appropriate.

If you believe that the decision in your case is unclear, not responsive to the issues which you raised, or does not otherwise comport with the decisional documents 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 obtain a copy of DoD Directive 1332.28 by writing to:

		DA Military Review Boards Agency
		Management Information and Support Directorate
		Armed Forces Reading Room
		Washington, D.C.  20310-1809.

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
		Building 36 Washington Navy Yard
		901 M Street, SE
		Washington, D.C.  20374-5023.