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

 ex-SR, USN
Docket No. ND99-01062

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 990803, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable.  The applicant requested a personal appearance hearing in the Washington National Capital Region.  The applicant listed K_ I. B_, Venango County Veteran's Affairs, as his representative on the DD Form 293.  In the acknowledgement letter to the applicant, he was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 000411.  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, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues (verbatim)

1.  REQUEST AN UPGRADE OF MY DISCHARGE FROM THE US NAVY.  MY DIFFICULTY WITH MILITARY SERVICE WAS A RESULT OF IMMATURITY AND I HAVE SINCE TAKEN STEPS TO IMPROVE MY LIFE.  I AM ENCLOSING NUMEROUS CHARACTER REFERENCES TO SUPPORT THE CHANGES THAT I HAVE MADE.  I BELIEVE THAT I DESERVE ANOTHER CHANGE TO SERVE IN THE MILITARY AND THAT IC AN HONORABLE SERVE.

2.  REQUEST AN UPGRADE OF MY RE-CODE THAT WOULD ALLOW ME TO RE-ENTER MILITARY SERVICE.  I WILL GRADUATE FROM CLARION UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA IN MAY 2000 WITH A B.S. IN EDUCATION.  I INTEND TO ATEND LAW SCHOOL AND WOULD LIKE TO COMPLETE MY LAW DEGREE, PURSUE A COMMISSION AND PRACTICE LAW WITHIN THE MILITARY SYSTEM.

Documentation

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

Applicant's Representatives ltr (Venango County, VA) dtd Jan 21, 2000
Letter of academic performance from Clarion University dtd Jan 4, 2000
Applicant's undtd letter to the Board
Letter of Reference from M_ R. H_, Esq dtd Dec 3, 1998
Letter of Reference from Rev. A_ R_, District Superintendent, dtd Oct 12, 1998
Letter of Reference from A_ N. D_, Investment Officer, dtd Dec 4, 1998
Letter of Reference from S. E. P_, VP, First Nat. Bank of PA dtd Jan 6, 1999
Letter of Reference from J. R_ O_, dtd Jan 11, 1999
Letter of Reference from G_ M_ dtd Dec 7, 1998
Letter of academic performance from Clarion University dtd May 25, 1999
Service Record Pages (15 pages including Copy of DD Form 214)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:    None
	Inactive:  USNR (DEP)	930308 - 930412	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  930413		Date of Discharge:  940506

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    01  00  24
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  20			Years Contracted:  4  

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  40

Highest Rate:  SA

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  NMF		Behavior:  NMF		OTA:  NMF

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 3630600.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

930414:	Retention Warning:  Advised of deficiency (defective enlistment and induction due to fraudulent entry into service as evidenced by his failure to disclose pre-service civil involvement/drug abuse.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning. 
	
931203:	NARC Med Dept. NAS Miramar:  21 year old male admitted to NARC TU-2 for treatment of alcoholism

940309:	CAAC Screening Results and Treatment Recommendation:  SR (Applicant) appears dependent on alcohol, having met the following dependency criteria us more than intended, unsuccessful attempts to control use, excessive time involvement, use interfering with responsibilities, lifestyle change due to use, use knowing it causes other problems, tolerance, withdrawal symptoms, and medicating withdrawal.  Recommend that applicant be offered treatment at an inpatient alcohol rehabilitation facility.  In interim, we recommend he attend three AA meetings weekly, attend PREVENT, continue with psychological treatment and receive regular support from command DAPA.

940312:	NBMC, NAS, Meridian, MS:  0001 21 year old male, here for confinement physical exam.  Has been intoxicated this evening, picked up by security creating disturbances.  No physical complaints now.  Long history of alcohol dependence.
	Impression/Plan:  Acute Intoxication - normal physical exam otherwise.  Fit for confinement

940313:	NBMC, NAS, Meridian, MS:  0900 21 year old male, here for 2nd confinement physical exam.  No current physical complaints.  Has sobered up since last night.  
	Impression/Plan:  Fit for confinement

940313:	Mental Status Exam:  Cooperative. Mood - sullen, remorseful.  Affect - congruent, Memory - appears WNL.  Intellect - WNL.  No neurovegatative signs and symptoms of depression.  Judgement - fair.  Insight - improving.  No suicidal/homicidal ideation, intent or planning, at the time of the interview.  Member understand reason for confinement.
	Plan:  1 - Continue "serial evals" as indicated, 2 - is responsible for self and action, 3 - considered competent , 4 - member contracted for safety of self and other, 5 - member strongly advised to discontinue/abstain alcohol use now & future due to current potential consequences, 6 - continue psychological/medical care as offered.

940314:	Summary Court Martial
Charge I:  violation of UCMJ, Article 89 - disrespect  toward a commissioned officer.
Charge II:  violation of UCMJ, Article 91 (2 Specs):
Spec 1 - disrespectful in language and deportment toward a petty officer.
Spec 2 - disrespectful in language toward a first class petty officer.
Charge III:  violation of UCMJ, Article 134 (2 Specs):  
Spec 1 - disorderly by vomiting due to intoxication in a public taxi cab, which conduct was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.
Spec 2 - drunk and disorderly, which conduct was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.
Charge IV:  violation of UCMJ Article 134:  wrongfully and willfully impersonate a commissioned officer of the navy by stating to enlisted Marine Corps personnel that he was a naval officer.
Findings:  to Charge I, guilty
	     to Charge II (Spec 1 & 2 dismissed due to lack of witness.
               to Charge III - Spec 1 - dismissed due to lack of witness,
                Spec 2 - Guilty.
	     to Charge IV - Guilty
Sentence:  60 days restriction; forfeiture of 2/3 pay ($933.30) for 1 month, reduction to E-1.

940315:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense (i.e. disrespect toward superior commissioned officer, impersonating an officer, drunk and disorderly) and alcohol rehabilitation failure.

840315:	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.  Applicant did not object to the separation.

940414:	Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense, (i.e. disrespect toward superior commissioned officer, impersonating an officer, drunk and disorderly) and alcohol rehabilitation failure.  Commanding officer’s comments (verbatim):  "At the summary court-martial, SR (Applicant) pled not guilty and was found guilty of violation of UCMJ Articles 89 and 134.  On 5 March 1994, SR (Applicant) was disrespectful in language to a superior commissioned officer.  On or about 11 March 1994, SR (Applicant) willfully impersonated a commissioned officer to enlisted Marine Corps personnel.  SR (Applicant) attended level III alcohol rehabilitation from 2 December 1993 to 29 December 1993.  Since then he has had several alcohol related incidents.  SR (Applicant) failed to conform to military standards of trustworthiness and reliability.  His total disregard for rules and regulations clearly indicates that he has no potential for continued naval service.  Based on the foregoing in accordance with reference (a) (MILPERSMAN Chapter 36), it is recommended that SR (Applicant) be separated from the naval service with an Other Than Honorable Discharge."

940502:	BUPERS directed the applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT 
REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 940506 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A and B).  The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (C).  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 (D and E).

In response to applicant’s issue 1, the Board found that the applicant's age, education level, and test scores qualified him for enlistment.  While he may feel that his immaturity was a factor that contributed to his actions, the record clearly reflects his willful disregard for the requirements of military discipline and demonstrated that he was unfit for further service.  The record is devoid of evidence that the applicant was not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions.

In response to applicants issue 2, the Board has no authority to change re-enlistment codes or make recommendations to permit re-entry into the Naval Service or any other of the Armed Forces.  Neither a less than fully honorable discharge nor an unfavorable "RE" code is, in itself, a bar to re-enlistment.  A request for waiver is normally done only during the processing of a formal application for enlistment.

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, can be considered.  In determining whether a case merits a change based on post-service conduct, the NDRB considers the length of time since discharge, the applicant's record of community service, employment, conduct, educational achievements, and family relationships.  In reviewing the applicant’s post service, the Board was impressed with the efforts he has begun to make in attempting to recoup his reputation which has been sullied by his misconduct in the Navy.  NDRB experience has shown that applicants with less than six years sobriety usually have not had sufficient opportunity to demonstrate continuing, positive contributions to society.  Therefore, relief will not be granted at this time.  The applicant is reminded that he remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing provided the application is received within 15 years from the date of discharge.  Representation at a personal appearance hearing is highly recommended.  The possibility of favorable action in the applicant’s case will increase with the amount of time he maintains an alcohol and drug free lifestyle.  Verifiable documentation of such a lifestyle is essential.  The applicant is encouraged to continue his community service, remain sober, and apply for a personal appearance hearing prior to 6 May, 2009

. 

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 5, effective 
05 Mar 93 until 21 Jul 94, Article 3630600, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT – COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE.

B.  Under the Manual for Courts-Martial, a punitive discharge is authorized for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 134, for wrongfully and willingly impersonating a commissioned officer, if adjudged at a Special or General Court-Martial.

C.  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.  

D.  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.

E.  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 Street SE Rm 309
		Washington, D.C.  20374-5023