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

ex-SKSN, USNR (TAR)
Docket No. ND01-00758

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 010509, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to General/under Honorable conditions.  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 020130.  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 – commission of a serious offense, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues (verbatim)

1.  My undesirable discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident in over 8 years of dedicated service.  The nature of my service prior to this incident was exemplary and I believe my service record does not reflect warranting of an undesirable discharge.

2.  At the time of this incident I was battling alcoholism and the trauma of an ongoing divorce proceeding.  I do not believe I was in a coherent frame of mind due to the mental stress I was under during this period.

3.  I made a verbal agreement with my commanding officer to no attend a navy rehabilitation program in lieu of completing 30 days in-patient treatment at the veterans administration hospital in Shreveport, LA, I successfully completed this requirement and was still recommended for an other than honorable discharge.

Documentation

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

None

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   USNR		750214 - 750407	HON
		   USN			750408 - 770807	HON
		   USN			820401 - 840822	HON
	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	820316 - 820331	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  840823		Date of Discharge:  890113

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    04  04  21
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  28			Years Contracted:  4 (16 months extension)

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  82

Highest Rate:  SK2

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.57 (7)	Behavior:  3.66 (7)		OTA:  3.63

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  GCM, NDSM

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Misconduct – Commission of a serious offense, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

871205:	Applicant's driving privileges on Barksdale Air Force Base are preliminarily revoked.

880316:	Civil Conviction:  violation of driving while intoxicated.
Sentence: Fine $509.00, driving improvement, community service, substance abuse.

880422:	Drug/Alcohol Abuse Control Program - History and Evaluation: Medical officer found applicant to be a problem drinker.  Recommendations: Enter local rehabilitation.

880820:	Applicant arrested for driving while intoxicated in Bossier City, LA.  No court date has been set.

880823:	Enlistment extended for 16 months.

880825:	Applicant declared a deserter.  Unauthorized absence since 0130, 25Jul84.

880825:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 111: Driving under the influence on 0219, 20Aug88, violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Absent from appointed place of duty from 0730-1200, 20Aug88.
	Award:  Forfeiture of 1/2 pay per month for 1 month, reduction to SK3.  No indication of appeal in the record.

880830:	Retention Warning:  Advised of deficiency (Driving while intoxicated, and alcohol abuse.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning. 
	
880830:	Applicant signed a revocation of on-base driving privileges.

880831:	Applicant received TAD orders to attend Alcohol Rehabilitation Program for 45 days at NAVHOSP Corpus Christi, TX from 5Sep to 19Oct88.

880901:	Applicant refused treatment.

880902:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under Other Than Honorable conditions by reason of alcohol abuse rehabilitation failure by reason of refusal and by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

880919:	Medical officer found applicant to be alcohol dependent.

880920:	Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult 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.

880929:	Applicant's statement found on microfiche.

881006:	Commanding officer recommended discharge under Other Than Honorable conditions by reason of alcohol rehabilitation failure by refusal and misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

881016:	Applicant's letter found on microfiche.

881128:	CNMPC directed the applicant's discharge under Other Than Honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the Commission of a serious offense.

881205:	Applicant's letter found on microfiche.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 890113 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).

Issue 1.   The applicant states his discharge was based on one isolated incident in over 8 years of dedicated service.  The applicant’s record shows repeated involvement with civil and military authorities due to alcohol related misconduct.  He had a DWI civil conviction in March of 1988, and was arrested in August of 1988 for a second DWI.  The applicant went to NJP 880825 for violation of UCMJ, Article 111 (driving under the influence), and then refused alcohol rehabilitation treatment.  A medical officer found the applicant ETOH dependent prior to his discharge.  The record clearly shows the applicant’s misconduct was more than a single isolated incident.  The discharge was proper and equitable.  Relief denied.

Issue 2.  The applicant states he was battling alcoholism and divorce proceedings and he wasn’t in a coherent frame of mind.  There is evidence that the applicant’s command attempted to provide help for his personal problems but the applicant refused treatment.  He was held accountable for his misconduct and was justifiably discharged.  The discharge was proper and equitable.  Relief denied.

Issue 3.  The applicant states he had a verbal agreement with his commanding officer concerning in-patient treatment at a treatment facility in Shreveport, LA.  There is no evidence in the applicant’s record nor did the applicant provide proof of any agreement he made with his Commanding Officer.  The applicant’s record does show he was offered ETOH rehabilitation treatment in which he refused.  Subsequently he was discharged.  The discharge was proper and equitable.  Relief denied.

The following is provided for the benefit of the applicant.  Normally, to permit relief, an error or injustice must have existed during the period of enlistment in question.  No such error or injustice occurred during the applicant’s enlistment.  Additionally, 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 civilian life, subsequent to leaving the service.  However, the NDRB is authorized to consider outstanding post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge, 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.  Verifiable proof of any post-service accomplishments must be provided in order for the applicant to claim post-service conduct and behavior as a reason to upgrade a less than Honorable discharge.  Evidence of continuing educational pursuits, an employment record, documentation of community service, certification of non-involvement with civil authorities and proof of his not using drugs, are examples of verifiable documents that should have been provided to receive consideration for clemency, based on post-service conduct.  The applicant did not provide any of these documents.  He is reminded that he remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of his discharge.  The applicant can provide additional documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments at that time.  Legal representation at a personal appearance hearing is highly recommended but not required.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560A), effective 15 Jun 87 until 
10 Jan 89, Article 3630600, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED MEMBERS 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 111 (Drunken Driving), 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.  

CD.  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 view DoD Directive 1332.28 and other Decisional Documents by going online at "afls10.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