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

ex-BMSN, USNR   
Docket No. ND03-01340

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20030806.  The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable.  The Applicant requests a documentary record review.  The Applicant did not list any representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20040608.  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/Misconduct – commission of a serious offense, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

“The following issues are the reasons I believe my discharge should be upgraded to Honorable.  If you disagree, please explain in detail why you disagree.  My previous request was improperly handled.  The presumption of regularity that might normally permit you to assume that the service acted correctly in characterizing my service as less than honorable does not apply to my case because of the evidence I am submitting:

1.)  Clemency is warranted because it is an injustice for me to continue to suffer the adverse consequences of a dishonorable discharge.

2.)  My average conduct and efficiency ratings/behavior and proficiency marks were good.

3.)  I received awards and decorations.

4.)  I had combat service.

5.)  My record of promotions showed I was generally a good service member.

6.)  I have been a good citizen since discharge.

7.)  My use of alcohol impaired my ability to serve, and preservice civilian conviction are properly listed on my enlistment documents, were used in discharge proceedings.

It was while serving in the U.S. Navy (1990 — 1993) on board the USS America, CV-66 Command, 1st Division, Deck Department that I came to see myself as being alcohol dependent. I had been in for approximately 2 years, 2 months and received 3 reprimands that it began to hit me.  My Department Head was not informed of my insubordination (sleeping, late for quarters, passed out and needing to be escorted back to ship). The LPO and Division Officer did not record these incidents in my file but that changed when a new LPO (BM1 R_) and new Division Officer (E_ M_) did report 2 minor alcohol related incidents.  They also recorded a drinking incident involving the Port Smith, VA civilian authorities.  I did not receive any reprimand but it did come home to me that my work, leadership, example to subordinates was diminishing.  Another incident occurred where I was found drunk after quarters sleeping in a fan room not accomplishing my assigned duties.  I was punished. I had to clean, strip and wax the entire forecastle and polish all the bright work.  My insubordination was not recorded in my file by my LPO or Division Officer.  I realized in what bad shape I was and that I was dependent on alcohol.  I was drinking rather than sleeping.  I followed the chain of command and told them
I had a problem with alcohol.  My Division Officer (E_ M_) was the Department Drug and Alcohol Representative.  He referred me to the Drug and Alcohol Program Officer.  I kept the appointment.  This Officer told me that E_ M_ had recommended that I attend civilian AA Meetings.  Mandatory Rehab was never afforded me.  After following the proper chain of command my Division Officer told me that I didn’t have a problem and would not accept that I had a problem.  My LPO told me that I needed to quit drinking even though I knew I couldn’t.  They just covered it up because they did not want this problem in their division or department.  My last and most serious incident occurred when I went on a two day drunk and got so intoxicated that I missed ships movement.  After my court-martial my Division Officer and Department head Had me sign a blank DD 214 because they were in a rush with the paperwork. I never knew til later how all of this would affect me.  My military record speaks for itself - 2 meritorious advancements (E-2 E-3) and my advancement test score was 4.0 and earned me a pay raise right away.  I received a Bravo Zulo Award for an xo inspection, a sailor of the day award, letters of appreciation, letter of accomendation from Admiral K_ - Destroyer Group II, ribbons and medals for my service.  Whoever reads this please realize that I tried to take ownership of my problem but was not allowed rehabilitation and to be able to remain and serve in the U.S. Navy. I have suffered greatly.  I have been hurt financially, materially, physically, and emotionally.  Please upgrade my discharge so that I no longer have to live in shame.

In the name of Jesus,

T_ L_ H_ (Applicant)”

Documentation

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

Statement from Applicant, undated
Copy of DD Form 214

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive:  None
	Active:   None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  900822		Date of Discharge:  930218

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    02  04  02
	Inactive:  00  01  22

Age at Entry:  25		Years Contracted:  8 

Education Level:  13			AFQT:  44

Highest Rate:  BM3

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.60 (1)	Behavior:  2.00 (1)		OTA:  3.40

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NDSM, SSDR, SASM, KLM

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  9

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Misconduct – commission of a serious offense, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

900822:	Applicant briefed on Navy's policy of drug and alcohol abuse.

901016:	Ordered to active duty for 36 months under the Active Mariner Program.

901020:	Applicant briefed on Navy's policy of drug and alcohol abuse.

930114:	Summary Court-Martial.
	Charge I:  violation of the UCMJ, Article 86:  UA from 0630, 921216 to 0300, 921226 (9 days).
	Charge II:  violation of the UCMJ, Article 87:  Miss movement on 921217.
	Charge III:  violation of the UCMJ, Article 95:  Resist apprehension on 921227.
	Charge IV:  violation of the UCMJ, Article 112A:  Wrongful use of a controlled substance from on or about 921119 to on or about 921124.
	Charge V:  violation of the UCMJ, Article 134:  Drunk and disorderly on 921227.
Finding: to Charge I -V specification thereunder, guilty.
	Sentence: Forfeiture of $830.00 per month for 1 month and 30 days confinement, reduction to E-3.
	CA action 930115:  Sentence approved and ordered executed 

930131:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense and drug abuse.

930201:	Applicant advised of his 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.

930205:	Applicant diagnosed drug dependent: ETOH.

930207:	Applicant signed PG 13 service record entry stating that he declines the offered VA in-patient treatment prior to his separation from the Navy.

930210:	Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

930218:	BUPERS directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19930218 under other than 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).

Issues 1-5.    The Applicant contends that he served the United States well and he is entitled to an Honorable discharge.  When the service of a member of U.S. Navy has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service as honorable.  An Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge 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 a Summary Court-Martial conviction for 5 violations of the UCMJ, to include violations of Articles 86, 87, 95, 112a and 134.  The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflects his willful failure to meet the requirements of his contract with the U.S. Navy and falls far short of that required for an upgrade of his characterization of service.  Relief is not warranted.

Issue 6.  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.  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 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.  At this time, the Applicant has not provided sufficient documentation of post-service accomplishments to merit an upgrade.

Issue 7.  The Applicant contends that his problems in the Navy can be attributed to his "use of alcohol."  While he may feel that his alcoholism was the underlying cause of his misconduct, the record clearly reflects his willful misconduct and demonstrated he was unfit for further service.  The evidence of record did not show that the Applicant was either not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions.  Relief on this basis is denied.

The NDRB, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge, is authorized to change the character of service and/or the reason for discharge if such change is warranted.  There is no evidence of impropriety or inequity in the Applicant’s discharge.  The Applicant’s misconduct is clearly documented.  Therefore, relief is 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 documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments or any other evidence related to his discharge 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), effective 15 Aug 91 until 
04 Mar 93, Article 3630600, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL 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