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

ex-MU3, USN
Docket No. ND03-00762

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20030328.  The Applicant requests the reason for the discharge be changed to “government convience or medical and Recode 3 or 2.”  The Applicant requests a personal appearance hearing before the board in the Washington National Capital Region.  The Applicant listed a civilian counsel as the representative on the DD Form 293.  Applicant withdrew civilian counsel.

Decision

A personal appearance discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20040520.  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 reason for 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 stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

1.  “Change charactorization –from alcohol rehabilitation failure, (as untrue) to government convience or medical

2.  Remove Captain B_’s untrue and inflammatory letter from all official records

3.  Remove reenlistment recode 4 – change to RE3, RE2 or RE1

4.  Reissue new DD 215 with these changes

5.  Have two enlisted, and two women on in person board with one reservist and only Navy personnel composing board

Issues from previous application, dated February 3, 2003 (renumbered):

6.  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.

7.  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_ 0_‘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,”

8.  “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)(l).

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 5420.1 74C.

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,"

Additional issues submitted by Applicant’s counsel (Civilian Counsel):

9.   “Medical Confidentiality.”

Documentation

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

Letter from Naval Construction Battalion Center, dated July 29, 1996
Letter from Commanding Officer, Naval Hospital, Pensacola, dated March 20, 1996
Copy of Preliminary Alcohol Screening Evaluation, dated January 22, 1996
Copy of Judgment of Divorce, dated September 26, 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:

930604:	Applicant reenlisted for 3 years.

960222:	Applicant to Level III inpatient alcohol rehabilitation.

960318:	Applicant acknowledged aftercare treatment plan.

960320:	Applicant completed Level III treatment and required to be in a one year monitored aftercare program.

960320:	Narrative Summary from Naval Hospital, Pensacola, FL: discharge diagnosis: alcohol dependence.

960522:	Applicant extended enlistment for 15 months.

961205:	Applicant disenrolled from aftercare support group.

970114:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of alcohol abuse rehabilitation failure as evidenced by your 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 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.

970228:	Commanding Officer directed the Applicant's discharge with an honorable by reason of alcohol abuse rehabilitation failure.  Commanding Officer’s comments (verbatim): a. Petty Officer W_ (Applicant) is an alcoholic who has continued to consume alcohol.  I sent her to Level III treatment, which she successfully completed.  As part of her aftercare program, she was not to consume alcohol.  A few months after her return to my command, she informed the chain-of-command that she started drinking again.  Although she had not been involved in an accident or been arrested because of her alcohol abuse, I felt that she may have posed a risk to my command and to the community.
	b. I did not know the magnitude of that risk so I called her and her division officer to my office and spoke with her at length.  She informed me that she was dedicated to the Navy.  She stated that she had a lapse and did drink again but no longer continued to do so.  She had a strong and influential mentor in her alcohol group who was providing support, and she wanted to continue to serve honorably until her End of Active Obligated Service.  She promised me that she would not drink again.  I felt that she was sincere.  At the end of the meeting I told her that I would give her another chance and wished her the best of luck.
	c. I was very disappointed to learn from her division officer, LT M_, that she had started to drink again.  Then I received enclosure (3), a letter disenrolling her from the aftercare program as a program failure.  The disenrollment is indicative of her inability to seriously address her problem.  Her unhealthy lifestyle could pose a threat to herself or other personnel at this command or to the local community.  After sending her to Level III treatment, closely monitoring her at the Navy Band, and giving her a second chance after a lapse, there is really nothing more I can do.  I have therefore decided that it is in the best interest of the Naval service and Petty Officer W_ (Applicant) to separate her with a characterization of service as honorable.  Petty Officer W_ (Applicant) has decided to waive her administrative board and accepts my recommendation.

030116:	NDRB documentary record review Docket Number ND02-00542 conducted.  Determination:  discharge proper and equitable; relief not warranted.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19970303 with an honorable discharge 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, 6 & 8.  The Applicant’s discharge characterization accurately reflects the nature of her service.  Normally, to permit relief, a procedural error or inequity must have existed during the period of enlistment in question.  There is no credible evidence that such error or inequity occurred during the Applicant’s enlistment.  Further, there is no evidence that member was not afforded all required due process.  The summary of service clearly documents her alcohol rehabilitation failure as the reason she was discharged.  No other Narrative Reason for Separation more clearly describes why the applicant was discharged.  To change the Narrative Reason for Separation would be inappropriate.  Relief based on these issues is not warranted.

Issues 2 & 9.  The Applicant requests that Captain B_’s letter be removed from all official records.  Captain B_’s letter shall remain part of the official naval records.  All documents, including medical, are part of the official naval record and will remain on file for official use only.  Only the Board for Correction of Naval Records has the authority to remove documents from official personnel records.  Relief denied.

Issues 3, 4, 6 & 7.  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, in itself, not a bar to reenlistment.  A request for a waiver can be submitted during the processing of a formal application for reenlistment through a recruiter.  Only the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) can make changes to reenlistment codes.  Relief denied.

Issue 5.  SECNAVINST 5420.174_ stipulates the Naval Discharge Review Board will be made up of five officers with at least three from the applicant’s service.  Applicant’s request for a specifically constituted board is denied.  

The board wishes to congratulate the applicant on remaining sober since April 18, 1998.  We wish her luck in continuing a substance free life.

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