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

ex-SA, USN
Docket No. ND99-00947

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 990707, 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 000331.  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 OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Misconduct - Pattern of Misconduct, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

The NDRB did note an administrative error on the original DD Form 214.  Block 5, Date of Birth should read 70 Mar 21.  Block 12c, Net Active Service This Period should read “02  05  14”vice “02  05  13”.  Block 29, Dates of Time Lost During This Period should read:  “None” vice “TL:”.  The original DD Form 214 should be corrected or reissued as appropriate. 

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

1.  I was made a scapegoat for an accident wich the victim purchased the alchole he drank and left with a friend who stated he was driving.

2.  I was then harrassed by my command by repeated test for alchole and sent mess cranking a 3rd time. The norm is once.

3.  I not saying I was a 4.0 sailor, but I though I knew how to stay out of trouble and I was hopeful to make if threw my entire enlistment and recieve my benifites for which I joined.

4.  I am sorry for seaman M_ and I hope he is doing well.  He was my friend, but the Navy blaming me was not right and the statements made by other shipmates at that party proved this.  The armed forces need to deal with the alchole problem thay have much like college around the country.  Which I would like to go to with my GI Bill if possible.  Thank you.

Applicant also marked that he had listed additional issues as an attachment to the application, but none were found.

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:   None
	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	880721 - 890726	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  890727		Date of Discharge:  920110

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    02  05  14
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  19			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  57/63

Highest Rate:  SN

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  2.20 (2)	Behavior:  2.30 (2)		OTA:  2.20

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NDSM, SSDR, SASM (DS)

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Misconduct – Pattern of misconduct, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

900823:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 113: Misbehavior of sentinel or lookout; sleeping on post.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $100 per month for 1 month, reduction to SR.  Reduction suspended for 6 months.  No indication of appeal in the record.

910528:	Drug and Alcohol Abuse Report: Alcohol abuse, May 6, 1991, civilian police, 1 to 3 times per month, ashore off duty.  CAAC and physician found applicant not dependent and recommended Level II treatment.  Commanding officer recommended retention and Level II treatment.

910708:	Civil Conviction: Harnett County, District Court, North Carolina for violation of driving while intoxicated.
Sentence:  Court cost $100.00, community services for 24 hours, 60 days suspension.

910709:	Retention Warning from USS FRANK CABLE (AS-40): Advised of deficiency (Substandard performance in the case of alcohol abuse, incident #1.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning. 

910729:	Applicant commenced CAAC's Level II counseling program.

910809:	Applicant completed Level II treatment.

911205:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92 (2 specs): Dereliction of duty on 12Nov91 and failure to obey on 27Nov91, violation of UCMJ Article 134: Serving alcoholic beverages to a person under the age of 21 on 19Oct91.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $400 per month for 2 months, restriction for 60 days, reduction to SA.  No indication of appeal in the record.

911220:	USS FRANK CABLE (AS 40) notified applicant of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to commission of serious offense as evidenced by commanding officer's nonjudicial punishment of 23 August 1990 and 5 December 1991; misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct as evidenced by commanding officer's nonjudicial punishment of 23 August 1990, 5 December 1991 and civilian conviction of 8 July 1991 for driving while intoxicated and alcohol abuse rehabilitation failure as evidenced by commanding officer's nonjudicial punishment of 5 December 1991.

911223:  	Applicant advised of his rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights.

911230:	Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to commission of serious offense, pattern of misconduct, civilian conviction and alcohol abuse rehabilitation failure.

920106:	BUPERS directed the applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.

920107:	Applicant informed identified to be drug/alcohol dependent and chose not to exercise right to substance abuse treatment through the Veteran's Administration.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 920110 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct (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).

The applicant’s first issue states: “I was made a scapegoat for an accident wich the victim purchased the alchole he drank and left with a friend who stated he was driving.”  The NDRB found no evidence in the record nor were supporting documents provided to support the applicant’s issue.  Relief not warranted.

The applicant’s second issue states:  “I was then harrassed by my command by repeated test for alchole and sent mess cranking a 3rd time. The norm is once.”  There is no documentation in the record to support this issue.  Relief not warranted.

The applicant’s third issue states: “I not saying I was a 4.0 sailor, but I though I knew how to stay out of trouble and I was hopeful to make if threw my entire enlistment and recieve my benifites for which I joined.”  Applicant briefed on Veterans' Educational Assistance Act of 1984 (G.I. Bill).  Specifically briefed that an honorable discharge after completion of 36 months of active duty would be required for entitlement to benefits under the G.I. Bill.  DD Form 2366, indicates applicant enrolled in the GI Bill.  The Veterans Administration determines eligibility for post-service benefits not the Navy Discharge Review Board.  There is no requirement or law that grants recharacterization solely on the issue of obtaining Veterans' benefits and this issue does not serve to provide a foundation upon which the Board can grant relief. 

The applicant’s fourth issue states: “I am sorry for seaman M_ and I hope he is doing well.  He was my friend, but the Navy blaming me was not right and the statements made by other shipmates at that party proved this.  The armed forces need to deal with the alchole problem thay have much like college around the country.  Which I would like to go to with my GI Bill if possible.  Thank you.”  The NDRB found this to be an non decisional issue. Relief not warranted.

The following is provided for the applicant’s edification.  The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge.  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.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C, effective 15 Aug 91 until 
04 Mar 93), Article 3630600, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT – A PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT. 

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, 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
		Washington Navy Yard
		720 Kennon St SE Rm 309
		Washington, D.C.  20374-5023