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

 
 ex-BUCA, USN 
Docket No. ND03-00554

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20030212.  The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions.  The Applicant requests 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 20040303.  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 was discovered by the NDRB.  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 1910-140 (formerly 3630600).

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

1. “I joined the Navy to please my parents.  My father was a military man.  I found it tough to adjust to the military life and environment.  Also when I was sent to Japan, I had a hard time adjusting to the culture, as I had never been far from home.  Being homesick and missing my family, I used poor judgement in choosing my friends and turned to alcohol for an escape and became dependent on it.  All of my problems while serving in the military were due to alcohol abuse.  I was classified as a Level III alcoholic.  I was diagnosed with the disease of alcoholism.  After my discharge, I attended a rehabilitation program and regularly went to Alcoholics Anonymous.  Since then I have been sober ever since, I would appreciate your considering my request to upgrade my discharge from other than honorable to general.  Thank you for your time and consideration on this matter.

Sincerely,

J_ M_”

Documentation

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

Police record check from Morgan County Sheriff’s Department, dated January 9, 2003
Letter from Assistant Police Chief, undated

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	980514 - 980827	COG
	Active:   None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  980828		Date of Discharge:  001121

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    02  02  24
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  19			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  90

Highest Rate:  BUCA

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  NMA*			Behavior:  NMA		OTA:  NMA

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  SSDR

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  3

*  No Marks Available for review

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

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

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

990312:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Failure to obey order or regulation, to wit: wrongfully consuming alcohol while under the legal drinking age of 21.  Award: Forfeiture of $479.70 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days.  Forfeiture for 1 month suspended for 6 months.  No indication of appeal in the record.

000120:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence from place of duty, violation of UCMJ, Article 91: Failure to obey the order of a first class petty officer.  Award: Forfeiture of $300 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to BUCR.  Forfeiture for 1 month, restriction and extra duty and reduction suspended for 6 months.  No indication of appeal in the record.

000216:	Summary Court-Martial.
	Charge I: violation of the UCMJ, Article 81:
	Specification: Conspiracy to violate order of the CO.
	Charge II: violation of the UCMJ, Article 92:
	Specification: Violation of a lawful order of the CO.
	Finding: to Charge I and II and the specifications thereunder, guilty.
	Sentence: Forfeiture of $670.00, confinement for 30 days.
	CA action 000224:  Sentence approved and ordered executed.

000216:	Applicant to confinement.

000311:	Applicant from confinement.

000821:	Summary Court-Martial [Trial dates: 000818 and 000821]
	Charge I: violation of the UCMJ, Article 86 (3 specs):
	Specification 1-3: Failure to go at the time prescribed to the appointed place of duty.
	Charge II: violation of the UCMJ, Article 92:
	Specification: Failure to obey order by consuming alcohol while in a duty status.
	Specification 2: Failure to obey regulation by consuming alcohol within 8 hours of duty.
	Charge III: violation of the UCMJ, Article 134:
	Specification: Incapacitation for proper performance of duty.
	Finding: to Charge I, II, and III, and the specifications thereunder, guilty.
	Sentence: Forfeiture of $670.00, confinement for 30 days.
	CA action 000901:  Sentence approved and ordered executed.

001103:	Applicant to unauthorized absence 0700, 001103.

001106:	Applicant from unauthorized absence 0700, 001106 (3 days/surrendered).

001121:	DD Form 214: Applicant's discharged under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-140.

Discharge package missing

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20001121 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).

Issue 1:  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.  While he may feel that his alcoholism 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 he was unsuitable for further service.  His service record is marred by award of non-judicial punishment (NJP) on two separate occasions and two summary court-martial convictions.  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.   At this time, the Board determined that the documentation submitted by the Applicant does not mitigate his misconduct while on active duty.  Relief denied.

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.  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 18, effective
12 Dec 1997 until 21 Aug 2002, 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 “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