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

 ex-LCPL, USMC
Docket No. MD99-01014

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 990721, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. The applicant requested 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 000310.  After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, 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 REHABILITATION FAILURE (no board  required), authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6209.

The NDRB did note an administrative error on the original DD Form 214.  Block 26, Separation Code should read:  “JPD1” vice “GPD1”.  The original DD Form 214 should be corrected or reissued as appropriate. 

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

1.	My undesirable discharge was unfair because it was based on a A.A. counselor opinion and not fact.  Without any reason to think I had involvement in alcohol. For the A.A. Counselor to say that I lacked participation because I didn’t agree with all his views and opinions. I think is absolutely wrong.
2.	My undesirable discharge was inequitable because I was told there was no reaching me because of my view and opinion that God was the only one who could stop me From drinking and not my A.A. sponsor and Friends.  Me and my counselor views was different on what can stop you from drinking so my counselor said there was not getting to me just because I didn’t agree with his opinion and view that is why I think my discharge was wrong. 
3.	My undesirable discharge was improper because I was not allowed to get a board because of m rank and time in service.  I didn’t have any one to listen to the Facts.  Of the situation.  Instead everybody listened to the opinion of the A.A. counselor views.  But not one time did anybody ask was I still drinking which I was not.  And I think that should have been what really matter and not opinions and view in a A.A. meeting.
4.	I think my undesirable discharge was inequitable because it was based on a one-time incident and should have been on something I did that violated the rules but I did not break any rules or law.  I have the right of Free speech and I express my views and opinion.  I did not break a rule by drinking again.  I was told not to hold any of my feelings back so I didn’t and when I express them I get punished for them.  My counselor was wrong. 

Documentation

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

Copy of DD Form 214

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   USMC		None
	Inactive:  USMCR(J)		921110 - 921228	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  921229		Date of Discharge:  960111

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    03  00  13
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  4 

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  39

Highest Rank:  LCPL

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Proficiency:  4.5 (6)			Conduct:  4.2 (6)

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NDSM, Rifle Marksmanship Badge 

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None 

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/ALCOHOL REHABILITATION FAILURE, authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6209.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

940315:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 91: Was at PMO, on or about 940308, and was disrespectful in language toward GySgt R_; violation of UCMJ, Article 91: Was at PMO, on or about 940308, was disrespectful in language toward Cpl. B_; violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Did on or about 940308, violate deep 5560.8 by driving on base while under the influence of alcohol; violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Did on or about 940308 violate deep 5560.8 by refusing to take a breathalyzer test; violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Did on or about 940308, resist being apprehended by LCpl A_ and LCpl L_, armed force policemen, authorized to apprehend the accused; violation of UCMJ, Article 111: Did on or about 940308, operate a motor vehicle in a reckless manner while impaired by alcohol; violation of UCMJ, Article 117: Did on or about 940308, wrongfully use provoking speeches and gestures towards GySgt R_ and LCpl B_
Awarded forfeiture of $466.00 per month for 2 months, reduced to E-2.  Reduction suspended for 4 months unless sooner vacated.   Not appealed.

940320:	Applicant diagnosed Alcohol Abuse (Provisional). Certified Medical Officer recommends Level I alcohol treatment.

950223:	Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct, specifically violating the suspension of driving privileges on 2 occasions. Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.  

950223:	Not recommended for promotion to CPL for Apr/May/Jun 95 due to recent page 11 entry dtd 950215.

XXXXX:	Applicant diagnosed as alcohol dependent with physiological dependence.  Level III indicated.

950714:	Applicant completed residential program for alcohol dependence and was returned to his command.

950911:	Counseled this date concerning your failure to attend a scheduled afternoon group session on 950815.  Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.  

951107:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Did on or about 0900, 951020, absent himself from his appointed place of duty, to wit: work; violation of UCMJ Article 86: Did on or about 0700 to 0800, 9510224, absent himself from his appointed place of duty, to wit: PT.
	Award: Restriction for 14 days and extra duty for 7 days.  Restriction suspended for 6 months unless sooner vacated.  Not appealed.

951112:	Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct, specifically your frequent violation of the UCMJ.  On several occasions you have failed to be at your appointed place of duty, which resulted in CO’s NJP.  Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.  

951201:	Applicant terminated from Level III after care treatment due to treatment failure 

951218:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under honorable conditions (general) by reason of alcohol rehabilitation failure, specifically Level III aftercare program failure.

951218:  	Applicant advised of his rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights except the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation.

951218:	Commanding officer recommended discharge under honorable conditions (general) by reason of alcohol rehabilitation failure.  The factual basis for this recommendation was the respondent’s failure of Level III After Care Program.  

960103:	SJA review determined the case sufficient in law and fact.

960103:	GCMCA [CG, MCRD, Eastern Region] directed the applicant's discharge under honorable conditions (general) by reason of alcohol rehabilitation failure.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 960111 under honorable conditions (general) due to alcohol rehabilitation failure. (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).

In the applicant’s issues 1,2 and 3, the Board found nothing in his records to substantiate his allegations that his discharge was unfair or inequitable.  He states that he received an undesirable discharge.  The Board found that that is incorrect.  The applicant received an Under Honorable Conditions (General) discharge, which is not an undesirable discharge.  Relief denied.
   
In issue 4, the applicant alleges that his discharge was based on a single incident.  The Board determined that this was not the case.  The applicant received one page 11 counseling that was alcohol related and one NJP, with 8 charges, that was alcohol related, in addition to the applicant’s failure to successfully complete the Level III aftercare treatment. Relief denied.  

The following is provided for the applicant’s edification.  The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge (E).  The applicant must be aware that 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 the civilian life subsequent to leaving the service.  Normally, to permit relief, an error or injustice must have been found to have existed during the period of enlistment in question.  Outstanding post-service conduct, 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, may be considered by the NDRB.  The applicant is reminded that he is eligible for a personal appearance hearing provided the application is received within 15 years from the date of discharge.  Representation at personal appearance hearing is highly recommended.
  
Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  The Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1600.19E), effective 950818 until Present, Paragraph 6209, ALCOHOL REHABILITATION FAILURE.
 
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 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, DC 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
		Washington Navy Yard
		720 Kennon Street SE Rm 309
		Washington, DC  20374-5023