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

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

  ex-AN, USN
Docket No. ND05-01208

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20050712.  The Applicant requests the Discharge 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 designate a representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 200603020.  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 and reason for discharge shall not change.  The discharge shall remain General (Under Honorable Conditions) by reason of alcohol rehabilitation failure.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

“Respectfully request upgrade of discharge so the availability of the Montgomery GI Bill may be used for college in an effort of becoming a law enforcement agent.”

Documentation

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

Applicant’s DD Form 214

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	19980814 - 19980902	COG
	Active:   USN	19980903 - 20011201	HON

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  20011202		Date of Discharge:  20021021

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    00  10  20
	Inactive:  None

Time Lost During This Period (days):

	Unauthorized absence:  None
	Confinement:		  None

Age at Entry:  24

Years Contracted:  6

Education Level:  12				AFQT:  32

Highest Rate:  AN

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  NA*				Behavior:  NA*		OTA:  NA*

Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, (as listed on the DD Form 214):  Sea Service Deployment Ribbon (2), Navy “E” Ribbon (2), Meritorious Unit Commendation, Navy Unit Commendation (2) Armed Forces Expeditionary, National Defense Service Medal

* Not Available

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/ALCOHOL REHABILITATION FAILURE, authority:  MILPERSMAN, Article 1910-152 (formerly Article 3630550).

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events: 

011202:	Reenlisted this date for a term of 6 years.

020219:	Applicant to intensive outpatient treatment.

020320:	Applicant completed intensive phase of treatment.  Diagnosis at time of transition: 1. Alcohol dependence.  2.  Nicotine dependence.

020707:	Applicant apprehended by Security for destruction of government
property. (BAC .058)

020928:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86:
	Specification: In that Aviation Boatswain’s Mate (launching and recovery equipment) Airman S_ K. D_(Applicant), U.S. Navy, USS CARL VINSON, on active duty, did, on board USS CARL VINSON, located at Bremerton, Washington, on or about 6 July 2002, without authority, go from his appointed place of duty, to wit: USS CARL VINSON.
Violation of UCMJ, Article 92: 
Specification: In that Aviation Boatswain’s Mate (launching and recovery equipment) Airman S_ K. D_(Applicant), U.S. Navy, USS CARL VINSON, on active duty, who knew of his duties on board USS CARL VINSON, located at Bremerton, Washington, on or about 6 July 2002, was derelict in the performance of his duties by willfully consuming alcohol on his duty day.
Violation of UCMJ, Article 108:
Specification:  In that Airman D_(Applicant), U.S. Navy, USS CARL VINSON, on active duty, did, at Jackson Park, on or about 7 July 2002, without proper authority, willfully damage, military property of the United States to wit: the door and wall of a Navy housing unit.
Violation of UCMJ, Article 134:
Specification: In that Airman D_(Applicant), U.S. Navy, USS CARL VINSON, on active duty, was at or near Bremerton, Washington, on or about 7 July 2002, drunk and disorderly, which conduct was prejudicial to good order and discipline.
	Award:  Restriction and extra duty for 30 days.  No indication of appeal in the record.

021007:	Memorandum from Command DAPA.  DAPA states history concerning Applicant. Applicant is informed that an alcohol related incident after completing Level Two treatment, is considered a treatment failure, and that service-members will be administratively separated unless a waiver is authorized from COMNAVPERSCOM.

021007:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with the least favorable characterization of service as general (under honorable conditions) by reason of pattern of misconduct, misconduct due to commission of a serious offense, and alcohol rehabilitation failure

021007:	Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult with counsel, elected to waive all rights except the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation.

021107:	Commanding Officer, USS CARL VINSON (CVN 70) directed discharge with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct - pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, and alcohol rehabilitation failure.  Commanding Officer’s comments:  “On 01 January 2001, ABEAN D_(Applicant) was apprehended by military authorities following a domestic assault. A breathalyzer test revealed that ABEAN D_(Applicant) had a .112 BAC.  As a result of this alcohol incident, he was screened by CAAC and determined to be alcohol dependant.  ABEAN D_(Applicant) was referred to Intensive Outpatient Treatment at Naval Hospital, Bremerton.  He completed treatment on 20 March 2002.  Four months later, ABEAN D_(Applicant) left the ship on his duty day and was again apprehended by military authorities for a domestic dispute.  Further investigation into this incident confirmed that alcohol was a factor, as ABEAN D_(Applicant) had a .050 BAC.  This alcohol incident subsequent to treatment mandated administrative processing.  As a result, I separated ABEAN D_(Applicant) for alcohol rehabilitation failure and characterized his discharge as General (Under Honorable Conditions).”

Service Record was missing elements of the Summary of Service.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20021021 by reason of alcohol rehabilitation failure (A) with a service characterization of general (under honorable conditions).  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 (B and C). The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (D).

The Applicant requests an upgrade to his discharge so he may use his GI benefits for college to pursue his goal of becoming a law enforcement officer. When the service of a member of the U.S. Navy has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service as honorable.  A General (Under Honorable Conditions) 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 one nonjudicial punishment proceeding for violations of UCMJ Articles 86 (unauthorized absence), 92 (derelict in the performance of duties), 108 (willfully damaging military property), and 134 (drunk and disorderly). The NDRB advises the Applicant that certain serious offenses warrant separation from the Navy in order to maintain proper order and discipline. Violations of Article 86, 92, 108, and 134 are considered serious offenses and typically warrant a punitive discharge if adjudged at a special or general court-martial .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 not warranted.

The NDRB advises the Applicant that the US Department of Veteran Affairs determines eligibility for post-service benefits not the Naval Discharge Review Board.  There is no requirement or law that grants recharacterization solely on the issue of obtaining Veterans' benefits and this issue does not serve to provide a foundation upon which the Board can grant relief.  Additionally, the Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment or educational opportunities.  Regulations limit the Board’s review to a determination on the propriety and equity of the discharge.  

The Board notes that the Applicant’s service record is missing elements of the Summary of Service. In the Applicant’s case, the Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs and that the Applicant’s discharge was regular in all respects.

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 additional evidence related to this discharge.  Representation at a personal appearance hearing is recommended but not required.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A   Navy Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), re-issued October 2002, effective 22 Aug 2002 until Present, Article 1910-152 (formerly Article 3630550), SEPARATION BY REASON OF ALCOHOL ABUSE REHABILITATION

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

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

D.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part II, Para 211, Regularity of Government Affairs.

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