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

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

ex-IT2, USN
Docket No. ND06-00463

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20060210.  The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable and the Narrative Reason for Separation be changed to “Expiration of term of service.”  The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review.  The Applicant designated American Legion as the representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20061206.  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 characterization 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 - ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Decisional Issues:

Propriety/Equity – command misconduct
Propriety – didn’t meet criteria for discharge
Documentation

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

Letter from Applicant, dtd February 1, 2006
Applicant’s DD Form 214 (Member 4)
Court Order from the State of Texas, dtd June 13, 2005
Record of Proceedings of Administrative Discharge Board (22 pgs)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	19960708 - 19961008	COG
	Active:   USN	19961009 - 19991125	HON

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  19991126		Date of Discharge:  20050622

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    05  06  27  
	Inactive:  None

Time Lost During This Period (days):

	Unauthorized absence:  None
	Confinement:		  None

Age at Entry:  24

Years Contracted:  4 (19-month extension)

Education Level:  12				AFQT:  42

Highest Rate:  IT2

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.5 (6) 		Behavior:  2.8 (6)			OTA:  3.42 

Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, (as listed on the DD Form 214):  Good Conduct Award (2), Navy Marine Corps Overseas Service Medal, Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, National Defense Service Medal, GWOTEM, Navy Marine Corps Achievement Medal, Sea Service Deployment Ribbon

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: 

991126:	Reenlisted this date for a term of 4 years.

000927:	Civilian DUI.  [Extracted from CO’s letter of 050405.]

000927:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Failure to obey a regulation.
	Violation of UCMJ, Article 111: Drunken or reckless operation of a vehicle.
	Award:  Restriction for 15 days, reduction to E-3 (suspended for 6 months).  No indication of appeal in the record.

010403:	Medical Department Mental Health Division, Psychological Evaluation by W.E. H_, Ph.D. CDR, MSC, USN, Clinical Psychologist:  IT3/N/AD stationed at NCTS for the past 10 months was self referred.  From age 24-present he usually consumes 10-15 drinks per sitting on weekends.  He admits to failed attempts at cutting back on his alcohol use, drinking for longer periods of time and more that he had intended, driving while intoxicated, a recent MVA which was alcohol related, tolerance, and spending considerable time either seeking, drinking or recovering from alcohol use.  Impression: Diagnostic interview reveals a Pt who meets DSM-IV criteria for Alcohol dependence with physiological dependence.  Pt is convinced that he can drink moderately with the assistance of a formal alcohol intervention program, however, he is in denial of the seriousness of this disease.  Pt successfully completed Alcohol IMPACT last week, which gave him an opportunity to take a close look at his alcohol problem.  There is no evidence of Psychosis or Major Depression.  Pt is totally responsible for his actions and should be held accountable.
Dx:  Axis I Alcohol Dependence with Physiological Dependence Attention Deficit Disorder (by history)
Axis II: Deferred.
Plan:    1. Fit for full duty.
			2. Recommended IOP alcohol intervention services.
3. Abstain from all alcohol use.  Medication consultation for      Ritalin.  Pt was cautioned regarding the use of Ritalin while drinking alcohol.
4. POC is Dr/CDR H_ at DSN _ or e-mail at _@nsa.bahrain.navy.mil. 

010522:	U.S. Naval Hospital, Rota Spain, Alcohol Treatment Facility Psychological Treatment Report by ATI C_ and Dr P__:  He was referred to ATF, Rota for treatment of alcohol dependence following a self-referral to the psychologist in Bahrain for advise concerning a previous childhood disorder.

010607:	Completion of Level II Treatment.  U.S. Naval Hospital, Rota Spain, Alcohol Treatment Facility Treatment Summary Report by E_ G. P_, Ph.D. LT, MSC, USNR, Clinical Psychologist ATF Dept Head:  The patient was admitted to Intensive Outpatient Treatment following assessment.  Final Diagnosis: 
	Axis I: Alcohol dependence, with physiological dependence Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, inattentive type (adult) as per Dr. H_’s evaluation.
	Axis II: No Diagnosis.
	Axis III: None Known.
	Recommendation for continued care:
	1. Abstain from further alcohol use.  Given the patient’s diagnosis it is strongly recommended that he abstain from alcohol use.  It is understood that the patient decided to attempt a “responsible drinking program” contrary to medical recommendations.
	2. Due to the unavailability of formalized Continuing care in Bahrain, the patient will participate in a formalized Continuing Care program administered by this command via e-mail.  It is the responsibility of the patient to make first contact with his case manager within on week of reporting back to command.  This formalized Continuing care should last for twelve weeks.  If the patient transfers to a command with formalized Continuing Care services, he should enroll for a period of twenty-six weeks.
	3.  The patient should also meet with Dr H_ or available psychologist once a month for three months or until he transfer from Bahrain.
	4. Participate in personal counseling at the Fleet and Family Support Center (FFSC), for support in continued recovery.  The FFSC counselor should determine the number and frequency of counseling sessions that are appropriate to meet the needs of the patient.
	5. Meet weekly with the command DAPA for a least one year after treatment completion in order to maintain a continual command assessment.  Any upcoming permanent change of duty station (PCS), should be followed up by the detaching command DAPA to ensure continuing of recovery services.
	6. Receive appropriate follow-up on medical attention (see biomedical conditions/complications of this report of details).
	7. Continue working on individual goals as documented in the patient’s ATF treatment record.  These goals include:
	a. Improving physical fitness through exercise and better nutritional habits.

041228:	Civilian DUI.  [Extracted from CO’s letter of 050405.]

050120:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence.
	Violation of UCMJ, Article 107: False official statement.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $1,030.00 pay per month for 2 months (suspended for 6 months), restriction and extra duty for 20 days, reduction to E-4.  No indication of appeal in the record.

050309:	An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence and by a vote of 2 to 1, determined the member to be an Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure.  By a vote of 3 to 0, member recommended retention.

050405:	Commanding Officer, MCM CREW EXULANT, recommended discharge with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure.  Commanding Officer’s comments:  “I strongly recommend separation ICO IT2 L_, USN.  Although the Administration Board, 09MAR05, recommended retention, I can not trust this Sailor on my ship and do not desire to transfer him to another Command.  IT2 Lester is an Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure, denies that he has an alcohol problem, and has had two DUI’s.”

050425:	Commander, Mine Warfare Command, forwarded, recommending administrative separation for Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) Discharge.

050531:	Commander, Navy Personnel Command forwarded Administrative Separation request to Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) for approval. 

050603:	Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) approved administrative separation.

050606:	CNPC directed the Applicant's discharge with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of alcohol rehabilitation failure.

050615:	Applicant found physically qualified for separation.

050622:	Applicant discharged.

Service Record contains a partial Administrative Discharge package.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20050622 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).

In the Applicant’s case, the Board could discern no impropriety or inequity and therefore considered the Applicant’s discharge proper and equitable.  Specifically, Applicant alleged that he was wronged by his Executive Officer when he was discharged shortly before his EAOS for alcohol rehabilitation failure.  The record, however, contains no evidence of any wrongdoing by the Executive Officer or anyone else for that matter in the discharge process.  The government enjoys a presumption of regularity in the conduct of its affairs.  The Applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support his issue.  There is no evidence in the record, nor has the Applicant produced any evidence, to support the contention that his discharge was improper.  The Applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity in this case.  The Board presumes regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs in the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary.  As such, this Board presumed that Applicant’s discharge was regular in all respects.  Relief denied.  

The Applicant argues that he should not have been separated for alcohol rehabilitation failure because his second DUI was out in town, not related to the military, and dropped by civilian authorities.  The board disagrees with the Applicant’s assessment.  The Applicant was arrested for DUI by civilian authorities on 20041228 during a period of unauthorized absence.  His command subsequently imposed nonjudicial punishment upon him for unauthorized absence and false official statements that he made to the command about the DUI.  Separation for alcohol rehabilitation failure is proper where a service member has an alcohol related incident subsequent to treatment.  Article 1910-152 of NAVPERS 15560C defines an alcohol related incident as “an offense punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) or civilian authority committed by a member where, in the judgment of the member's CO, the consumption of alcohol was the primary contributing factor.”  A conviction is not required to find that a service member has engaged in an alcohol related incident.  His alcohol related arrest for DUI, notwithstanding any subsequent disposition, serves as a factual basis for discharge.  In this case, the Applicant’s related unauthorized absence and false official statements regarding his arrest would also serve as a factual basis for discharge.  Disposition of his civilian offense did not negate the existence of an alcohol incident or the Applicant’s nonjudicial punishment for misconduct committed during the events surrounding the incident.  The government enjoys a presumption of regularity in the conduct of its affairs.  The Applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support his issue.  His has failed to overcome that burden.  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 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), Change 11, 29 April 2005 until Present, Article 1910-152, 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 Instruction 1332.28, you may submit a complaint in accordance with Enclosure (5) of that Instruction.  You should read Enclosure (5) of the Instruction 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 Instruction 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