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

  ex-LCDR, USN
Docket No. ND03-00468

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20030131.  The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable and the reason for the discharge be changed to secretarial authority.  The Applicant requests a personal appearance hearing before the Board in the Washington National Capital Region.  The Applicant designated civilian counsel as the representative on the DD Form 293.  In the acknowledgement letter, the Applicant was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20031229.  After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the Applicant’s service and reason for discharge was discovered by the NDRB.  The Board’s vote was unanimous that the character and reason for the discharge shall not change.  The discharge shall remain: GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/ MISCONDUCT, authority: BUPERS ORDER 1682 of 17 Jun 02 and SECNAVINST 1920.6B.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

“1.  Whether Applicant’s alcohol abuse was the direct causation of alleged misconduct.”

“2.  Whether Applicant was an impaired health care provider who should have been given treatment and supervision rather than disciplinary action.”

“3.  Whether Applicant’s service was properly characterized given her duty performance.”

“4.  Whether enough was done to rehabilitate Applicant prior to a Board of Inquiry.”

“5.  Whether a Board of Inquiry was proper in view of the Applicant’s status as an impaired healthcare provider.”

Documentation

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

Copy of DD Form 214 (Member – 1)
Three pages from Applicant’s Medical Record
Two pages from Drug and Alcohol Program Advisor Administrative Screening
R_ R_ ltr of Feb 15, 2001 concerning Thanksgiving incident
Two Fitness Report &Counseling Records (Period 00AUG10 to 00FEB14 & 01NOV01 to 01JUL19)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: USNR		890911 - 890922	To accept commission

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Appointment:  890923		Date of Discharge:  020731

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    12  10  09
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  31			Years Contracted:  8

Education Level:  16	

Highest Grade:  LCDR

Final Officer Performance Evaluation Averages:  All officer performance reports were available to the Board for review.

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NAM, NUC, NDSM(2), SWASM(2), HSM, SSDR, N&MCSR, KLM (Saudi Arabia), Flag LoC 

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT, authority:  BUPERS ORDER 1682 of 17 Jun 02 and SECNAVINST 1920.6B.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

010514:	Completed Level II alcohol rehabilitation treatment at ATF, Rota, Spain.

010611:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 133:  Conduct unbecoming an officer; violation of UCMJ, Article 134 (2 Specs):  Drunk and Disorderly Conduct and Drunkenness – Incapacitation for performance of duty through prior wrongful indulgence in intoxicating liquor.
	Award:  Reprimand in writing.  

010612:	Punitive Letter of Reprimand issued.

010613:	Applicant appealed the nonjudicial punishment.

010627:	Commander, Fleet Air Mediterranean, denied Applicant’s appeal.

010710:	Applicant’s Statement in response to Punitive Letter of Reprimand.

010725:	CO, U.S. Naval Hospital, Naples, forwarded Applicant’s Report of Nonjudicial Punishment to CNPC recommending Application be required to show cause for retention.

010802:	Applicant’s Statement in response to NJP to show cause for retention.

010813:	NJP (Admiral’s Mast) for violation of UCMJ, Article 133:  Conduct unbecoming an officer; violation of UCMJ, Article 134 (2 Specs):  Threat, communicating.
	Award:  Punitive Letter of Reprimand, forfeiture of ½ months pay for 2 months (suspended for 6 months) and 14 days restriction. 

010823:	Punitive Letter of Reprimand issued.

010828:	Applicant appealed her nonjudicial punishment.

010927:	Applicant advised of denial of appeal of her nonjudicial punishment. 

020117:	Successfully discharged from alcohol abuse continuing care program.

020314:	Board of Inquiry:  By votes of 3-0, the Board found that Applicant committed the misconduct alleged, failed to demonstrate acceptable qualities of leadership and that she failed to conform to prescribed standards of military deportment.  By votes of 3-0, the Board recommended separating Applicant from the naval service with a general discharge. [Extracted from CNP’s ltr of 19 Apr 02.]

020419:	CNPC recommended to the Secretary of the Navy that Applicant be discharged with a general characterization by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

020611:	Assistant Secretary of the Navy (M&RA) approved Applicant’s discharge.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20020731 with a characterization of general (under honorable conditions) for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (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 1-5:  Normally, to permit relief, an error or injustice must have existed during the period of service in question.  No such error or injustice occurred during the Applicant’s service.  While she may feel that her alcohol abuse was a contributing factor, it does not mitigate the Applicant’s disobedience of the orders and directives that regulate good order and discipline in the naval service, demonstrating she was unsuitable for further service. Her service record is marred by award of non-judicial punishment (NJP) on two separate occasions for several offenses including conduct unbecoming an officer, communicating a threat and drunk and disorderly conduct.  The Applicant’s discharge accurately characterizes her service and no other narrative reason for separation could more clearly describe why she was discharged.  Relief denied.

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, a positive employment record, an alcohol-free lifestyle, and certification of community service and non-involvement with civil authorities are examples of verifiable proof that can be submitted.   

The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of discharge.  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 31, dated 20 Feb 01, effective 25 Jan 01 until 21 Aug 02, Article 1910-142  [formerly 3630605]. SEPARATION BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT - COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE.

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