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

 ex-STGSN, USN
Docket No. ND05-00854 

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20050419.  The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable.  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 20050811.  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:

“I GREW UP IN THE NAVY, I ENLISTED AT THE AGE OF 17.  MY PLANS WERE TO MAKE THE NAVY MY CAREER, IT WAS MY LIFE.  I AM PROUD OF MY MILITARY SERVICE AND I FEEL I DESERVE THE RECORD THAT REFLECTS THE PRIDE AND DEDICATION THAT I SELFLESSLY GAVE MY COUNTRY.”

Applicant provided the following Remarks:

"I T_ A. A_ (Applicant) was discharged from the Navy in the fall of 1992 with an OTH Discharge.  I had lost my temper with the men as they had no clue what they were doing that night.  As the chief over a Division of 42 it upset me that these guys had no idea how to operate the equipment.  When assigned maintenance on an item I would Read the Manual so as to be an expert & I expected everyone to be like me & learn all they could.  Why the captain kicked me out I don’t know.  12 years of good conduct, 2 Navy achievement Medals I felt very competent about myself & my job & attitude.  I was very good at my job & I expected every one else to be also.  I would have stayed in 30 years as I grew up in the Navy & it was all I knew my whole life was the Navy.

[signed]  T_ A. A_ (Applicant)"

Documentation

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

No additional documentation.

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: USNR(DEP)		780522 – 780607	COG
Active:   USN			780608 – 840315	HON
Active:   USN			840316 – 880114	HON

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  880115		Date of Discharge:  920813

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    04  06  29
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  27			Years Contracted:  6 

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  60

Highest Rate:  STGC

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.7 (4)		Behavior:  3.8 (4)		OTA:  3.80

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  Good Conduct Medal (2), Sea Service Deployment Ribbon (2), Navy Expeditionary Medal, Navy Achievement Medal (2), Meritorious Unit Commendation, National Defense Service Medal, Golden Wreath Award (4), Enlisted Surface Warfare Specialist device

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

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:

880115:	Applicant reenlisted on this date for 6 years.

881018:	Applicant briefed on Navy's drug and alcohol abuse policy.

890330:	Applicant briefed on Navy's drug and alcohol abuse policy.
	
920325:	Retention Warning:  Advised of deficiency (Misconduct: Substandard performance, late for quarters; Alcohol abuse: First incident), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning. 

920421:	Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse Program Entry Statement:  Applicant acknowledged that he was formally evaluated by a CAAC counselor for an alcohol-related incident and recommended for the Level I Treatment Program.  Applicant advised that failure to fully participate in this regimen may constitute grounds for administrative separation processing and/or disciplinary action.  Applicant further advised that his performance would be closely monitored for a minimum of 12 months.

920506:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 Unauthorized absence (1 hour, 25 minutes); violation of UCMJ, Article 92 Failure to obey order (other lawful order).  Award:  Restriction for 14 days.  No indication of appeal in the record.

920506:	Retention Warning:  Advised of deficiency (Commanding Officer’s non-judicial punishment of violation of UCMJ Articles 86 and 92).  Notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning. 

920528:	Medical Record Entry by Counseling and Assistance Center (CAAC), Naval Station, Mayport, FL:  "Screened at CAAC following an ETOH related NJP (UA) on 06 May 92.  Previous ETOH incident (Pg13 warning) on 25 Mar 92.  Pt disclosed a light/occasional drinking pattern and stated he never drinks to excess.  Previously screened at CAAC, Newport, RI following the 25 Mar 92 Pg 13 for misconduct and ETOH abuse.  CAAC Newport recommended NADSAP – patient did attend.  Patient has had 2 ETOH incidents in a 6 week period which seems to dispute his disclosures of light/occasional drinking.  Patient appears to have minimized his drinking and may be in denial.  Problem:  ETOH abuse.  Plan: (1) Recommend Level II Tx. (2) Test for HIV-1 immediately prior to treatment IAW Pers-63 ltr of 06 May 92. (3) The individual appears to be an abuser of alcohol.  Abuse signs noted IAW DSM-IIIR are:  Uses knowing it causes other problems.  (4) Screening counselor recommendation:  (b) Level II Outpatient treatment for substance abuse at CAAC.  (e) (1) In the interim: Refer to Medical Officer for Dependency Evaluation."

920624:	Substance Abuse/Dependence Evaluation:  Method of referral:  CAAC
	Reason for CAAC referral:  Late to work; Applicant states no relation to ETOH.  Applicant stated the last time he was intoxicated was 910613 from beer at a place in town; estimated use was approximately one six-pack a week.
	Impression:  Although Applicant has had several problems with lateness or confusion about work days, he does not seem to be dependent or to be an abuser to alcohol.  NADSAP is all that is needed.
		
920625:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 134:  Requesting commission of an offense.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $100.00 pay per month for 2 months, restriction for 21 days.  No indication of appeal in the record.

920701:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

920701:	Applicant advised of rights and that, if separated with an other than honorable discharge, he will be administratively reduced to paygrade E-3.  Having elected not to consult with counsel, the Applicant elected to waive all rights.

920701:	Commanding Officer, USS LEYTE GULF (CG 55), recommended that Applicant’s discharge be under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.  Commanding Officer’s comments:  "Chief A_ (Applicant) is recommended for immediate administrative separation.  Chief A_ (Applicant) is a discredit to the CPO community and the Naval service.  He has been to mast twice in the past two months, the last time, for ordering his subordinates to lie for his self protection.  He cannot be trusted.  His behavior is unacceptable on my ship and in the U. S. Navy.  Discharge should be Other Than Honorable and immediate."

920727:	BUPERS WASHINGTON DC directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense and administrative reduction to E-3 effective upon separation.

920819:	Commanding Officer, USS LEYTE GULF (CG 55) forwarded discharge documentation to BUPERS (Pers 8322) notifying them of Applicant's discharge with an other than honorable characterization of service due to the commission of a serious offense.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19920813 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A and 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).

The Applicant contends that he deserves a record reflective of his in-service dedication to the U.S. Navy as evidenced by his 12 years of good service, various awards including two Navy Achievement Medals, and his position as a Chief Petty Officer in charge of a division of 42 Sailors.  The NDRB advises the Applicant that, despite a service member’s prior record of service, serious offenses, even though isolated, warrant separation from the Navy in order to maintain proper order and discipline.  The Applicant's misconduct is documented in his service record, which shows his last period of enlistment to be marred by the following:
o	referral to CAAC and recommendation for Level I (on 19920421), Level II (on 19920528), and NADSAP (19920624);
o	nonjudicial punishment on 19920506 for violation of UCMJ Article 86 Unauthorized absence and Article 92 Failure to obey order or regulation;
o	nonjudicial punishment on 19920625 for violation of UCMJ Article 134 Requesting commission of an offense;
o	retention warnings on 19920325 and 19920625 for continued deficiencies in performance and conduct.
This misconduct substantiates the reason for the Applicant's separation as well as his characterization of service under other than honorable conditions.  No other narrative reason for separation or characterization could more clearly describe why the Applicant was discharged.  Relief on this basis is denied.

The following is provided for the edification of the Applicant.  Normally, to permit relief, a procedural impropriety or inequity must have occurred during the discharge process for the period of enlistment in question.  The Board discovered no impropriety after a review of Applicant’s case.  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 Naval service.  The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the Applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review.  Examples of documentation that should be provided to the Board include proof of educational pursuits, verifiable employment records, documentation of community service, credible evidence of a substance-free lifestyle and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities.  As of this time, the Applicant has not provided any post-service documentation for the Board to consider.

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.  Under the Manual for Courts-Martial, a punitive discharge is authorized for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 92 Failure to obey order or regulation if adjudged at a Special or General Court-Martial.

C.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part V, Para 502, Propriety.

D.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part V, Para 503, Equity.

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 “http://Boards.law.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:

		Secretary of the Navy Council of Review Boards
		Attn:  Naval Discharge Review Board
		720 Kennon Street SE Rm 309
		Washington Navy Yard DC  20374-5023