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

ex-ATAR, USN
Docket No. ND02-00162

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 011210, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable and that the reenlistment code be changed.  The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review.  The applicant did not designate a representative on the DD Form 293.  Subsequent to the application, the applicant obtained representation by the American Legion.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 020715.  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:  GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-140 (formerly 3630600).

The NDRB did note an administrative error on the original DD Form 214.  Block 28, Narrative Reason for Separation, should read:  “PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT” vice “MISCONDUCT”.  The original DD Form 214 should be corrected or reissued as appropriate. 

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as submitted

1.  (Equity Issue) While this former member recognizes and regrets his misconduct, he nonetheless believes that his overall service record warrants a fully honorable characterization of service. 

2.  (Equity Issue) This former member further requests that the Board include provisions of SECNAVINST 5420.174C, enclosure (1), Chapter 9, as it pertains to post-service conduct, in assessing the merits of this application.

Documentation

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

        Applicant’s attachment to application for review of discharge (3 pages)
Character Reference from F. E. J_, Retired Police Officer, dated May 15, 1999
Character Reference from M_ F_, Ed. D., Houston Community College, dated May 19, 1999
Character Reference from L_ C_-J_, Attorney and Counselor at Law dated May 18, 1999
Letter of Recommendation from I_ P_, Dir, International Student Affairs, Texas Southern University, dated May 25, 1999
Virginia Alcohol Safety Action Program Receipt dated Sep 20, 1999
Applicant's Parents’ letter to CDR J. P. H_ dated Sep 18, 98
Applicant's Parents’ letter to Administrative Discharge Board, dated Sep 19, 1998
CO, NATTC, Millington's Letter of Appreciation to Applicant
Certificate of Training, Course Completion, Naval Aviation VIDS/MAF and SCIR Documentation, dated Oct 24, 1997
Certificate of Completion, Avionics Technician Organization Level Course, Class A1, dated Jan 27, 1997
Applicant's letter to the Board dated Nov 16, 2001
Copy of DD Form 214

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   None
	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	950828 - 960211	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  960212		Date of Discharge:  990128

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    02  11  17 (Doesn't exclude lost time)
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  20			Years Contracted:  4 

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  65

Highest Rate:  SN

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  NMF*	Behavior:  NMF		OTA:  NMF

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  Battle "E" Ribbon (2)

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  9

*No Marks Found in service record.

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-140 (formerly 3630600).

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

[ADMINISTRATIVE DISCHARGE PACKAGE NOT CONTAINED IN SERVICE RECORD AND APPLICANT DID NOT PROVIDE, AS REQUESTED BY THE BOARD]

960703:	Unauthorized absence from NATTC Millington, TN at 0700.  Intentions unknown.

960708:	Surrendered onboard NATTC Millington, TN at 0700, 96JUL08 (5 days).  

960731:	Applicant charged 5 days lost time.  Absence not excused and EAOS adjusted to 00FEB16.

980511:	Unauthorized absence from NAS Norfolk, VC-6.

980514:	Surrendered onboard NAS Norfolk, VC-6 (4 days).

980608:	Medical record shows brig check in sheet this date.

981006:	Lost time charged, absence not excused.

981113:	Competence For Duty Exam:  Reason for referral - member smells of alcohol.  Pt arrested for assault and battery at ATM last PM, then came to work/brought over by command for competence for duty exam.  Pt has no complaints.  Claims had triple cognac at midnight only.  Denies previous alcohol treatment.  Denies diagnosis previously as alcohol dependent. 
	Recommend CAAC eval, Pt may not drive until thoroughly sober.  Alcohol level is higher than would be expected for amount of alcohol which member admits to drinking, at the time he claims to have drunk it.

981113:	NMC Portsmouth:  Pt referred by command for smelling of alcohol.  Pt has no complaints.  Claims drank triple cognac at midnight.  Denies previous diagnosis of ETOH dependence, or previous alcohol treatment.
	Assessment:  Acute intoxication, ETOH, mild.
	Plan:  Release to custody of command (Chief W_, escort).  Recommend CAAC eval.

981204:	Summary of Care:  Medical Alert notation - Alcohol Dependence.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 990128 with a General (Under 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).

Issue 1.  The Board found nothing in the records available for review to support the applicant’s claim that his overall record sufficiently mitigates his misconduct to warrant an honorable characterization of service.  Relief is therefore denied.

In review of the applicant’s letter to the NDRB, the Board found no merit in the applicant’s allegations of unfair and inconsistent treatment by the Navy.  Offenses punishable by the UCMJ are assumed to adversely impact military morale and efficiency.  Civilian offenses, such as DUI, properly and equitably are the basis for charges of misconduct, whether or not these charges result in a civilian conviction or military punishment.  Another military member who commits offenses and is not punished or separated does not in and of itself constitute an inequity regarding the Navy’s disposition of the applicant’s own misconduct.  The Board found no documentation to support the applicant’s claim that he was unfairly denied medical treatment. The Board found no documentation to support the applicant’s claim that he was unfairly denied his rights concerning his involuntary separation.  Relief denied.

Concerning a change in reenlistment code, the NDRB has no authority to change reenlistment codes or make recommendations to permit reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Naval Service or any other branch of the Armed Forces.  Neither a less than fully honorable discharge nor an unfavorable “RE” code is, in itself, a bar to reenlistment.  A request for waiver is normally done only during the processing of a formal application for enlistment through a recruiter.  Relief is therefore denied.

Issue 2.  The applicant’s discharge characterization accurately reflects his service to his country.  The discharge was proper and equitable.  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 relief, based on post-service conduct.  The applicant did not provide sufficient documentation to warrant an upgrade to his discharge.  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.  Relief denied.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 18, effective
12 Dec 1997 until Present, Article 1910-140 (formerly 3630600), SEPARATION BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT - 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 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