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

 ex-MU3, USN
Docket No. ND02-00542

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 020318, requested that the reason for the discharge be changed to “change narrative reason for separation section to normal discharge status.”  The Applicant requested a documentary record discharge review.  The Applicant did not list any representative on the DD Form 293.  Subsequent to the application, the Applicant obtained representation from the Disabled American Veterans.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 030116.  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 narrative reason of the discharge shall not change.  The discharge shall remain: HONORABLE/ALCOHOL REHABILITATION FAILURE, authority: MILPERSMAN, Article 3630550.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as submitted

1.  Negative DD-214 caused by prejudice of base commander against Alcohol Rehabilitation and those with alcohol problems.
Command influence upon or incompetence of command appointed attorney.
Understaffing of Navy band administration in failure to properly excuse member from aftercare sessions while on temporary duty causing administrative action and release from active duty.
Self reffered into alcohol rehabilitation program.
Alcohol problems result of marital, physical, and emotional abuse - problem no longer exists.
Have been sober since successful completion of the Navy Alcohol Rehabilitation Program and continue to participate in the AA Program.
Wish to serve in U.S. Reserve Forces I.E. Louisiana National Guard.
Characterization on DD 214 even though fully Honorable causing refusal of employment.
No records of or any other type of administrative or punitive actions against me either before or after alcohol rehabilitation treatment.
Excellent record of civilian employment and references since my release from the Navy active duty.

2.  Gentlemen,

This is the fifth anniversary of my discharge from the US Navy.  I now believe, that I have been the victim of an injustice and wish to correct my Navy Record. I respectfully request that my RE-Code be upgraded in block 27 of my DD Form 214 from a Reenlistment Code (RE Code) of RE-4 to a RE 1.  I also ask that the characterization in block 28 and the SPN code in block 26 be favorably changed.  The negative characterization and SPN code are not only administratively incorrect but are also patently untrue.

On 3 March 1997, I was released from the Navy with an Honorable Discharge under fully honorable conditions.  However, the RE-4 Code, the SPN Code, and the Narrative Reason for Separation on my DD214 form, do not accurately or truly reflect the honorable character and nature of more than 8 years of my exemplary Navy service.

In March 1996, I self refereed myself into the Navy's Level 3, Inpatient Alcohol Rehabilitation Program.  I did this because I felt I was developing an unwanted alcohol dependency that I could not tolerate.  During that time, I was dealing with the pain of a physically and emotionally abusive marriage and with the additional stress of the Navy Band's heavy schedule of out of town travel requirements.  The Navy Band performed at that time, an average of 450 out of town performances per year.

As part of the Navy Alcohol Rehabilitation Program requirements, I was tasked to attend weekly Naval Aftercare sessions for a period of one year.  However, I was compelled to travel extensively as a Navy Band member and missed 20 of my required Aftercare sessions.  These absences were beyond my control.  My unit departed for a 3-month tour, within 24 hours of my release from the Navy Hospital after having successfully completed of the inpatient portion of the Alcohol Rehabilitation Program.  Senior Chief Petty Officer D_ A_ who was the Designated Command Drug and Alcohol Personnel Advisor (DAPA), was required, but failed to, officially excuse me from my Aftercare absences due to Temporary Active Duty (TAD) orders as a band member.  I believe this was an oversight; due to the fact that Senior Chief A_ was also traveling with the separate Navy Steel Band and was absent from the command a great deal of the time.  Therefore, the many absences from my required weekly Aftercare sessions were never officially excused.  This was inspite of many requests through my Chain of Command to be officially excused from the Aftercare sessions.

I attended more than the required number of Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) Meetings while on Temporary Active Duty outside my command, to make up for the missed Aftercare sessions.  I kept a detailed logbook of all the AA meetings that I attended and of all correspondence with my AA Sponsor in New Orleans.  I attended the meetings conscientiously because of the alcohol-oriented environment that I was placed in during the course of my duties as a band member.

The Navy Aftercare Coordinator, Chief Petty Officer M_, refused to accept my record of attendance at AA Meetings, as equivalent to my missed Aftercare Sessions.  Ironically, one of the primary requirements of my Aftercare instructions was to attend a minimum of 5 AA meetings per week.  I upheld my end of the Aftercare contract event though Naval orders prevented me from attending my weekly required Aftercare sessions.  The Aftercare counselors dropped me from the Aftercare Program in February 1996, because of the number of officially unexcused absences I had accumulated.  Upon being dropped from the Aftercare Program, I was immediately served with Navy Administrative Separation papers.

In my case, I believe serious understaffing in my own Command caused the inadvertent mishandling of the administrative requirements of the Alcohol Rehabilitation Aftercare Program.  This caused the over reaction in Base Command Channels and brought about the involvement of Captain B_, the Base Commander. I intended to say this at the Naval Discharge Review Board Hearing.  Captain B_ then appointed Navy Attorney LT M_, who poorly and deceptively advised me.  He told me, if I chose to appear before The Naval Discharge Review Board that they would "take away my GI Bill" and "possibly give me a Dishonorable Discharge".  LT M_ also promised me that I would receive the full “$15,000 in severance pay" and "I would be able to take Terminal Leave rather than be forced to sell it back"

I asked LT M, "if there was any way that Captain B_, the Base Commander, would put these guarantees in writing before I signed the waiver form relinquishing my right to appear before the Naval Review Board"?  LT M_ replied," you will just have to trust me because it is my job as your attorney to represent your best interests within the Navy".  I reluctantly signed away my right to appear before the Navy Discharge Review Board based upon LT M_'s self serving advice.  LT M_ was able to persuade me to act against my own best interests because I was thoroughly intimidated by his status as an officer, my age at the time and my perceived inferior status as a junior enlisted person.

I believe now, that this was a flagrantly illegal incidence of Command Influence by Captain B_ upon my attorney LT M_.  Specifically, I charge that my outrageous treatment was due to the fact that my charges of Command neglect of Command Alcohol Rehabilitation Program, would seriously embarrassed Captain B_ before the Navy Discharge Review Board.  Additionally, Captain B_ rated my attorney LT M_.  LT M_'s office was located in a cubicle in close proximity to the Captain's office and had no privacy.  Captain B_ previously had told me privately that he was going to see to it that I was eliminated from the service because he knew "drunks could never be rehabilitated".

On the day of my discharge, 3 March 1997, I arrived at the Base Dispersing Office to begin my out-processing paperwork.  I was horrified to discover that my DD Form 214 had a Reenlistment Code of RE-4, and that the Narrative Reason for Separation classified me as an Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure.

I learned that I was only entitled to 1/2 of my severance pay due to the characterization of my discharge.  The total amount of severance pay I received was $5,800.00 after taxes instead of the $15,000.00 dollars LT M_ had promised me.  Captain B_; although not in my direct Chain of Command personally revoked my base privileges immediately following my discharge, to ensure I did not receive better advice.

Since I received my discharge; Wal-Mart, McDonalds, and the New Orleans Police Department are a short list of private and public agencies that have refused me employment based on, as they informed me, the negative characterization on my discharge.  Most potential employers have treated my discharge as if it was much less than honorable; if not dishonorable.  I have treated as a pariah and as a criminal because of the words "alcohol" and "failure" on the characterization section of my DD Form 214.

In contrast; I have played music for the last 5 years, with some of the best internationally known musicians including- A_ H_, C_ O_'s, J_ P_, and H_ C_ SR.  These are but a few of the many talented musicians I have worked with.  The musical community is the only place where I have been treated as worthwhile person and as a professional on and off stage.

I have maintained my dignity and remained sober since I completed the Inpatient Naval Alcohol Rehabilitation Program.  I have never been arrested for any reason nor have I ever received so much as a traffic ticket; yet I am permanently branded as an undesirable due to the characterization of my discharge.

My future plans include further military reserve service with the Louisiana Army National Guard Band, while attending collage for my nursing certification.  I hope to have a family and children, after I become established in a professional career.  An upgrade of my DD Form 214 will greatly facilitate my career and professional efforts.  The upgrade will also restore my personal sense of honor and worth.

I humbly submit this application for upgrade of my RE Code, SPN Code and Characterization of Service.  I enclose compelling evidence from my Navy Military Record and references from my musical employers and those who know me well for your consideration.  I still take pride in my service to America.

Respectfully, 

3.  Dear Chairperson:

After a review of the Former Service Members (FSM) DD Form 293 Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States and all of evidence assembled for review, we continue to note the contention of the appellant in his request for a discharge upgrade in the following manor; narrative reason be changed to reflect a normal discharge; RE 4 be changed to RE 1; and a name change of (Applicant's former last name) to (Applicant's current last name).

The FSM served on active service from July 17, 1989 to March 3, 1997 at which time she was discharged due to alcohol rehabilitation failure.

The FSM contends the current discharge is improper because there is no evidence of a rehabilitation failure, that alcohol has not been touched since completion of the alcohol rehabilitation course in March 1996, therefore it cannot be used as a reason.  It is noted that the use of alcohol was to deal with emotional abuse, marital and physical problems that no longer exist.  That if there was a failure to complete the required course it was due to the Navy Band Administration and their failure to properly excuse the FSM from the aftercare program / sessions due to a staffing shortage.

This creates a need for a review of the application of the standard, for the Board to determine that the Applicant's discharge was improper.   The Board will determine which reason for discharge should have been assigned based upon the facts and circumstances before the Board, including the service regulations governing the reasons for discharge at that time, to determine whether relief is warranted.  See, SECNAVIST 5420.174 (c), Par. (f)(1).

As the representative, we ask that consideration be given to equitable relief, as this is a matter that involves a determination whether a discharge should be changed under the equity standards, to include any issue upon which the Applicant submits to the Board's discretionary authority, under SECNAVIST 5420.174C.

Under the premises of equitable relief, we believe the Board can changed the narrative reason to Convenience Of The Government, and the change of the last name to (M_), as long as there is evidence of divorce / marriage prior to discharge.

On the issue of the change of the RE Code of 4 to that of RE1, we ask that the Board direct the FSM to complete the application DD Form 149 for submittal to the Board For Correction as the Discharge Review Agency does not have jurisdiction on this matter.

We ask for the Board's careful and sympathetic consideration of all the evidence of record used in rendering a fair and impartial decision.  These issues do not supersede any issues previously submitted by the Applicant.

Respectfully,

Documentation

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

Applicant's DD Form 214 (Member 1 and 4)
New Orleans police record check dated March 4, 2002
Honorable discharge certificate
Character reference dated March 4, 1997
Twenty-one pages from Applicant's service
Personal recommendation dated February 27, 2002
Character reference dated June 8, 2000
Job/character reference dated June 12, 2000
Character reference dated June 12, 2000
Job/character reference, undated
Character reference dated February 28, 2002
Character reference dated February 28, 2002
Character reference dated February 27, 2002
Character reference dated February 27, 2002
Character reference dated June 12, 2000

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	890707 - 890716	COG
	Active:   USN 			890717 - 930603	HON

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  930604		Date of Discharge:  970303

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    03  09  00
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  24			Years Contracted:  3 (15 months extension)

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  34

Highest Rate:  MU3

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.80 (3)	Behavior:  3.80 (3)		OTA:  3.93

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NDSM, GCM

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

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

HONORABLE/ALCOHOL REHABILITATION FAILURE, authority:  MILPERSMAN, Article 3630550.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

960222:	Applicant admitted to Alcohol Rehabilitation Department.

960320:	Applicant completed Level III inpatient treatment and assigned to Aftercare status for the duration of her military career.

960320:	Applicant discharge diagnosis: Alcohol dependence
.
961205:	Applicant disenrolled from aftercare program due to Applicant's inability and lack of commitment to sobriety.

970114:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for an honorable discharge by reason of alcohol abuse rehabilitation failure as evidenced by failure to follow a directed Level III aftercare program by continuing to drink, failing to attend aftercare support group meetings and subsequently being disenrolled from the aftercare support group with a final prognosis of poor.

970219:	Applicant advised of her 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.

970228:	Commanding Officer recommended an honorable discharge by reason of alcohol abuse rehabilitation failure as evidenced by failure to follow a directed Level III aftercare program by continuing to drink, failing to attend aftercare support group meetings and subsequently being disenrolled from the aftercare support group with a final prognosis of poor. 

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was honorably discharged on 970303 due to alcohol rehabilitation failure (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).

Issues 1-3.  The Board found no evidence that the Applicant’s base commander was prejudiced against her, or that her command or substance abuse program personnel contributed to her failure to complete alcohol rehabilitation.  The Board found that the Applicant failed alcohol rehabilitation by continuing to drink alcohol after completing Level III treatment.  While she may feel that her marital, emotional, and physical problems at the time were factors that contributed to her actions, the record is devoid of evidence that the Applicant should not be held accountable for her conduct.  The Applicant’s discharge accurately reflects her service to her country.  No other narrative reason and corresponding separation code more clearly describes the circumstances surrounding the Applicant’s processing for administrative separation.  The Board found that the Applicant’s claim that she was not properly represented by counsel does not mitigate the decisions she made concerning her administrative separation.  The discharge was proper and equitable.  Normally, to permit relief, an error or inequity must have existed during the period of enlistment in question.  No such error or inequity is evident during the Applicant’s enlistment.  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.  An unfavorable “RE” code is not, 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.

The Board found no documentation that the Applicant’s last name at the time of her separation was different than that currently recorded on her DD Form 214.  Therefore, no correction to Block 1 is recommended.

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 change the discharge.  Evidence of continuing educational pursuits, an employment record, documentation of community service, certification of non-involvement with civil authorities and evidence of a substance free lifestyle, are examples of verifiable documents that may be provided to receive consideration for relief, based on post-service conduct.  The Applicant did not provide sufficient documentation to warrant an upgrade to her discharge.  Relief denied.

She is reminded that she remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of her discharge.  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.  The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 14, effective 
03 Oct 96 until 11 Dec 97, Article 3630550, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL BY REASON OF ALCOHOL ABUSE REHABILITATION FAILURE.

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