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

 ex-GMG3, USN
Docket No. ND00-00707

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 000511, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to under Honorable conditions (General).  The applicant requested a personal appearance hearing before the Board in the Washington National Capital Region.  The applicant listed a civilian counsel as his representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A personal appearance discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 001114.  The Board’s decision was held in abeyance until a psychological evaluation report on the applicant, could be provided to the board for consideration.  After a thorough review of the records, all supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the NDRB discerned there was 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 – Drug abuse (Use), authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630620.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

1.  Although he was identified as alcohol dependent, he was not afforded the full measure of the Navy’s alcohol rehabilitation program.  In particular, according to remarks on the Nov. 26, 1985 Counseling an Assistance Center memo, he was “diagnosed alcohol dependent 22 April 84, went to ARC 22 April [to] 6 June 84, did not work an aftercare program.”  A Dec. 5, 1985 medical record note repeats this information:  “25 [year-old white male] completed ARC 6/84 – never underwent aftercare or 6 [months] antabuse program.”  Applicant contends that this failure constitutes an impropriety.  Applicant contends that had he timely undergone the full measure of the Navy’s alcohol rehabilitation program, he might not have accumulated the number of NJPs (most of which were alcohol-related) he did nor had the poor performance marks both of which contributed to the command’s decision to administratively discharge him for misconduct.

2.  Although he was identified as alcohol dependent, and although he reported on his April 1, 1986 Report of Medical History, a history of “depression or excessive worry” and “nervous trouble of any sort” his medical records do not reveal that he underwent any psychiatric evaluations during his naval service.  The June 1984 Narrative Summary at discharge from ARC further noted he had reported “periods of anxiety and depressed moods.”  Nonetheless, that ARC narrative summary was prepared by a medical supply corps officer and chief petty officer; it was merely approved by a medical corps officer with no indication that that doctor was a psychiatrist.  Applicant contends that his UOTHC discharge was inequitable because had he been evaluated by a psychiatrist, his underlying psychiatric disorder would likely have been identified and he would have been identified and he would have been separated prior to accumulating the number of NJPs and poor performance marks that he did.  This issue is particularly significant in light of his immediate post-discharge diagnosis of bi-polar disorder and his continuing treatment for his disorder.  The failure to provide a psychiatric evaluation in light of the Applicant’s behavior was inequitable.

3.  Applicant concedes that his drug use in March 1986 upon return from a lengthy cruise was inappropriate and regrettable.

4.  Applicant contends that his discharge was inequitable because a psychiatric disorder impaired his judgment at varying times throughout his naval service.  He notes that despite numerous NJPs (the first of which began within four months of recruit training), he was recommended for advancement and was advanced.  As noted in the prior NDRB decision, he was even nominated as the Sailor of the Quarter.  Applicant contends that this see-sawying behavior, namely, misconduct followed by very good conduct, was evidence of his subsequently diagnosed psychiatric disorder and that that disorder impaired his ability to conform his behavior to naval standards.
Documentation

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

Copies of DD Form 214 (Member 1 and Member 4)
Psychological evaluation dated December 12, 2000

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   USNR		810305 - 850205	HON
	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	810302 - 810304	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  850206		Date of Discharge:  860417

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    01  02  12
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  24			Years Contracted:  6

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  40

Highest Rate:  GMG2

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.40 (3)	Behavior:  3.27 (3)		OTA:  3.53

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  SSDR (2), NEM

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT – Drug abuse (Use), authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630620.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

850206:	Applicant reenlisted on USS KALAMAZOO (AOR-6)

851003:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Failure to obey other lawful order by not returning to the ship after making a phone call on 21Sep85.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $100 per month for 1 month, reduction to GMG3.  Reduction suspended for 6 months.  No indication of appeal in the record.

851023:	Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (On 21Sep85, while KALAMAZOO was inport Rota, Spain, a day of duty, you were granted permission to leave the ship to make a phone call.  You failed to report back onboard in a timely manner, in addition, you were found drunk on duty.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning. 

851126:	Medical evaluation for alcohol abuse found the applicant to be alcohol dependent.  Applicant was screened on 26NOV85 and was found to be alcohol dependent.  It is therefore recommended that SNM be referred to an ARC/S for inpatient care.  A prerequisite for treatment is the placement on an antabuse therapy program.  Please evaluate for any physiological problems contraindicative to the use of antabuse and prescribe as appropriate.  A.C.O.A.  Diagnosed alcohol dependent 22 April 84, went to ARC 22 April-6 June 84, did not work an aftercare program. Started drinking “a couple months” after ARC.  Received NJP 3 OCT 85 for being drunk on duty!  Father is an alcoholic.  Client has past history of tolerance, shakes, blackouts and many incidents.

860108:	Drug and Alcohol Abuse Report: Ethyl alcohol (ethanol) abuse, 1 to 3 times per week Mar84-Sep85.  CAAC found applicant dependent and recommended Level III treatment.  Command/supervisor Sep85.  Commanding officer recommended alcohol residential treatment.  Second incident.  Comments: SNM has potential for further naval service.  He has been scheduled for residential refresher treatment.

860110:	Applicant informed evaluated as a drug or alcohol abuser and possess no potential for continued naval service.
 
860320:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 112A: Wrongful use of a controlled substance.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $495 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to GMG3.  No indication of appeal in the record.

860402:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse as evidenced by CO's NJP dated 20 March 1986.

860402:  	Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights.
860408:	Drug and Alcohol Abuse Report: Cocaine abuse, less than monthly Feb86, ashore off duty.  SAC found applicant not dependent and recommended separate not via VA hospital.  Inspection urinalysis 14Feb86.  Commanding officer recommended separation.  Comments: SNM has no potential for further Naval service and is being processed for ADSEP.  Has had 3 NJP's and completed alcohol residential treatment Jun84.

860409:	Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.  Commanding officer’s comments (verbatim): Gunners Mate Third Class (applicant) has demonstrated his disregard for the rules and regulations of the Navy.  Positive screenings for drug usage indicate no potential for useful Naval service.  He does not desire continued Naval service.  It should be noted that Petty Officer (applicant) had eight CO's NJP's during his last enlistment.  I recommend that Petty Officer (applicant) be discharged from the Naval Service with an Other Than Honorable Discharge.

860413:	CNMPC directed the applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse (use).

930817:	NDRB documentary record review Docket Number ND92-01332 conducted.  Determination:  discharge proper and equitable; relief not warranted.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 860417 under Other Than Honorable conditions for misconduct due to Drug abuse (Use) (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).

Issue 1.  The applicant states he was not afforded the full measure of the Navy’s alcohol rehabilitation program, since he did not participate in a 6-month aftercare program for alcohol abuse.  The applicant was discharged for drug abuse, specifically, cocaine and not alcohol abuse.  The applicant stated he voluntarily used crack cocaine around the clock, on a daily basis, for several months, because his wife had transformed their home into a “crack house,” and he cared for her.  During that time, the applicant continued to report for duty as a Gunners mate, jeopardizing his safety and that of his shipmates.  The Board determined this discharge was proper and equitable.  Relief denied.

Issue 2.  The applicant states he was never evaluated by a psychiatrist, who would have been able to diagnose his bi-polar disorder and take steps to prevent any subsequent misconduct.  The applicant failed to convince the Board that his drug abuse would have been prevented through execution of an antabuse after care treatment program.  The last documented alcohol related incident occurred on 3 Oct 85 and the cocaine abuse occurred in March 1986.  The psychological evaluation submitted by the applicant, although it was conducted 4.5 years after the applicant’s discharge, states “While the specific cocaine abuse which led to his discharge was clearly volitional and censurable, i.e., not the product of a mental disorder such that it can be excused entirely, Mr. Craddock’s propensities, his history and needs at the time certainly indicate what should be considered mitigating circumstances of the offence.” The Board determined the applicant’s childhood circumstances were not mitigating circumstances to the drug abuse.  This discharge was proper and equitable.  Relief denied.

Issue 3.  The applicant states his drug use in March 1986, upon return from a lengthy cruise, was inappropriate and regrettable.  The Board agrees with the applicant’s statement, but this is not a decisional issue and requires no further comment.  Relief denied.

Issue 4.  The applicant states despite numerous NJPs, he was recommended for advancement and advanced and also nominated for Sailor Of the Quarter.  A military member can be punished and/or treated for alcohol abuse and still remain in the military.  If the command determines that same member’s performance deserves recognition, they have that authority.  However, drug abuse requires mandatory processing for separation, and misconduct takes precedence over a discharge for medical reasons.  The applicant may have been bi-polar at the time of service but that would not mitigate his drug abuse.  The board determined this discharge was proper and equitable.  Relief denied.

The applicant submitted a psychological evaluation, dated December 12, 2000, for consideration by the Board.  The Board considered the psychological evaluation, in addition to all other records and documents, in its deliberation and determined an upgrade to the applicant’s discharge is not warranted.  Relief denied.  

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Navy Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560), Change 10/85, effective 
16 Dec 85 until 05 Oct 86, Article 3630620, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED MEMBERS BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT DUE TO DRUG ABUSE. 

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 view DoD Directive 1332.28 and other Decisional Documents by going online at "afls14.jag.af.mil".

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
		720 Kennon Street SE Rm 309
		Washington Navy Yard DC  20374-5023