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

 ex-UTCN, USN
Docket No. ND02-00384

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 020214, 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 021114.  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/PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as submitted

1.  My discharge was inequitable because it was based on a "pattern of misconduct" isolated within the last 6 months of my service - my record until that point was spotless.

2.  While serving @ M.I.N.S.Y. I screwed up & got hooked on Methamphetamines & everything went to shit - mainly my health & mental attitude -

After my Discharge I moved in w/my brother & his wife in Houston, TX. & got my self straight & back on track.

The Discharge has always been a sore spot w/me.   And I appreciate you taking the time to review my application.

Documentation

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

Copy of Applicant's DD Form 214

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: USNR		870807 - 880202	COG 
Active:   USNR 		880203 - 880701	RELACTRA
	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	890313 - 890423	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  890424		Date of Discharge:  940909

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    05  04  16
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  21			Years Contracted:  4 (25 months extension)

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  55

Highest Rate:  UT2

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.60 (9)	Behavior:  3.57 (9)		OTA:  3.64

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  GCM, NDSM, SSDR (4), BER (2), SASM, NUC

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

940301:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Absence without leave/failed to go to appointed place of duty on 24 Jan 94.
	Award: Forfeiture of $619.95 per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duty for 7 days, reduction to UT3.  Punishment suspended for 6 months.  No indication of appeal in the record.

940303:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Absence without leave on 2 Mar 94.
	Award: Forfeiture of $619.95 per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duty for 7 days, reduction to UT3.  No indication of appeal in the record.

940531:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (2 specs): (1) Absence without leave on 0630-0845, 25 Apr 94, (2) Absence without leave 0900 - 1430, 5 May 94.
	Award: Restriction and extra duty for 30 days, reduction to UTCN.  No indication of appeal in the record.

940531:	Retention Warning from CBU-421 Naval Ship Yard, Mare Island, CA:  Advised of deficiency (Absent yourself from your unit without authority (5 specifications).), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning. 

940614:	CAAC screening: Applicant found to be alcohol and drug dependent.

940721:	Drug and Alcohol Abuse Report: Amphetamines abuse, 4-7 times per week, ashore off duty.  Self referral/disclosure 940608.  CAAC recommended separation.  Physician found Applicant dependent and recommended separate via VA hospital.  Commanding Officer recommended separate via VA hospital.  Comments: Drug use has effected his performance, late to work, and not getting enough sleep.

940722:	Commander, Naval Base San Francisco notified Applicant of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct as evidenced by all punishments under the UCMJ in your current enlistment, and misconduct due to drug abuse as evidenced by your sole admission of drug abuse divulged to a DAPA counselor through the voluntary self-referral program.

940726:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Absence without leave.
	Award: Forfeiture of $552.90 per month for 2 months, restriction for 60 days, reduction to UTCA.  Forfeiture and reduction suspended for 6 months.  No indication of appeal in the record.

940726:	Applicant advised of 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.

940727:	Commanding Officer, Naval Base, San Francisco, CA recommended discharge general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and misconduct due to drug abuse.

940815:	Applicant declined DVA treatment.
 
940829:	BUPERS directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 940909 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 Board disagrees with the Applicant's first issue.  The Applicant asserts his overall service record warrants an upgrade to his discharge and his misconduct occurred during an isolated six months.  When the service of a member of U.S. Navy has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service as honorable.  Under other than honorable conditions is warranted when significant negative aspects of a member's conduct or performance of duty outweigh the positive aspects of the member's military record.  The Applicant’s service was marred by numerous unauthorized absences, and an addiction to drugs and alcohol.  The Applicant was separated for a pattern of misconduct based on the nonjudicial punishments imposed as a result of the Applicant’s unauthorized absences.  The pattern of misconduct reflects his willful failure to meet the requirements of his contract with the U.S. Navy and falls short of that required for an upgrade of his characterization of service.  Relief is not warranted.

Regarding the second issue, the Board found the Applicant was of sound mind when he committed his misconduct.  While he may feel that his alcoholism and drug addiction were the underlying cause of his misconduct, the record clearly reflects his willful misconduct and demonstrated he was unfit for further service.  Alcohol and drug abuse are never a defense to misconduct.  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.  Relief on this basis is denied.

The following is provided for the benefit of the Applicant.  Normally, to permit relief, the discharge or characterization of the Applicant's service had to be improper or inequitable.  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.  Relief denied.

The Applicant is reminded that the period of eligibility for a personal appearance hearing is 15 years from the date of discharge.  The application package must be submitted to the NDRB prior to the expiration of the 15 year period.  The Applicant can provide additional documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments at that time.  Representation at a personal appearance hearing is recommended but not required.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C, Change 9, effective 
22 Jul 94 until 02 Oct 96), 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 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