ex-AEA, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received:  20081210
Characterization of Service Received:  
Narrative Reason for Discharge: 
Authority for Discharge:  MILPERSMAN 

Applicant’s Request:  Characterization change to:  
		       Narrative Reason change to:  

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive: USNR (DEP)	20020312 - 20021105  	Active:	

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment:  20021106	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Extension
Date of Discharge:  20071012	Highest Rank/Rate:  AE3
Length of Service:   Year(s)     Month(s)   07 Day(s)
Education Level:  	AFQT:  NFIR
Evaluation Marks:	Performance:  3.7 (3)	Behavior:  3.0 (3)	OTA:  3.28

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	  

Periods of UA/CONF:  

NJP:  
- 20050513:	Article 92 (Failure to obey a lawful order)
	Article 112 (Drunk on duty)
	Awarded:     Suspended:  

- 20070822:	Article 92 (Failure to obey a lawful order)
	Article 107 (False official statement)
	Awarded:     Suspended:  

SCM:  	SPCM:  	CC:  

Retention Warning Counseling:  

- 20050513:	For violation of Article 92 and Article 112 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). 

Types of Documents Submitted/reviewed

Related to Military Service:	
                                         DD 214:  	 Service/Medical Record:  		  Other Records:  

Related to Post-Service Period:	
	Employment:			Finances:			Education/Training:	
	Health/Medical Records:		Substance Abuse:			Criminal Records:	
	Family/Personal Status:		Community Service:		References:		
              Additional Statements:
                             From Applicant:  	From Representation:         	From Congress member:    
                    Other Documentation:  

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

Applicant’s Issues

1. Education opportunities.
2. Informed he could get GI Bill benefits with a General discharge.
3. Alcoholism started while in the Navy.

Decision

Date:  20090312		Location:  Washington D.C.	Representation:  

By a vote of  the Characterization shall  .
By a vote of  the Narrative Reason shall  ALCOHOL REHABILIATION FAILURE.

Discussion

:  either  which the Board cannot form the basis of relief for the Applicant, or  the Board does not have the authority to grant the relief for which the Applicant petitioned.  The Applicant is directed to the Addendum, specifically the paragraphs concerning  regarding .

:  ()  .  The Applicant contends he is entitled to an upgrade in the characterization of service because “the disease of alcoholism [was] acquired while serving in the United States Navy” and he did not drink alcohol prior to his enlistment.  The Applicant also contends it is incorrectly documented that he started drinking at age 13.  In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of Government affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the Applicant.  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.

The Applicant’s record of service reflects he received one retention warning for failure to obey a lawful order and being drunk on duty and two NJPs for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 92 (Failure to obey a lawful order), Article 107 (False official statement), and Article 112 (Drunk on duty).  The presumption of regularity of governmental affairs was applied by the Board in this case in the absence of a complete service record and the unavailability of the Applicant’s medical records.  There was insufficient evidence in the record to determine when the Applicant first began to drink or when he was first diagnosed as being alcohol dependent.  Regardless of when the Applicant began drinking, there is no evidence in the record, nor has the Applicant produced any evidence to support the contention that the Navy caused or was responsible for him “acquiring the disease of alcoholism.”  Additionally, each service member is responsible for adhering to state and military rules regarding the consumption of alcohol.  The Applicant’s overindulgence in alcohol as discussed supra, reflects his disregard for such laws and regulations and resulted in him being subjected to disciplinary actions and administrative separation.  

The Commanding Officer, Carrier Airborne Early Warning Squadron 113, signed a letter on 16 October 2007, which indicates the Applicant was separated for Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure after he failed to obey an order pertaining to the Substance Abuse Rehabilitation Program and with intent to deceive, signed an official record, the attendance sheet and continuing care group record.  Based on the foregoing evidence the Board presumed the Applicant was diagnosed as alcohol dependent and ordered into treatment which included attending Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings prior to being discharged.  The Navy met its obligation to offer treatment to the member once he was determined to be alcohol dependent.  However, it is the responsibility of each individual to comply with the treatment regimen that is ordered.  The record of evidence and the Applicant’s statement on the DD Form 293 reflects the Applicant believed it was unnecessary for him to attend AA meetings because of the help he was getting from friends and family.  Furthermore, the record reflects he made false entries on records pertaining to his alcohol treatment that resulted in his involuntary separation.  Based on the foregoing evidence, the Board determined the Navy was not responsible for the Applicant’s alcohol dependence and acted appropriately in offering the Applicant treatment.
The Board also determined there was sufficient evidence to separate the Applicant due to Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure and the characterization of service was appropriate due to the seriousness and frequency of offenses committed by the Applicant during this enlistment and the lack of mitigating circumstances.  Therefore, relief is denied.

In regard to the contention regarding erroneous documentation in the records, the Applicant did not provide a copy of the record which he alleges incorrectly states the age at which he began drinking.  Therefore, the Board was unable to make a determination as to the correctness of the information.  Furthermore, if the Applicant is in disagreement with language in his record he may seek relief from the originator of the document or seek redress from the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR).  The Applicant is directed to the Addendum, specifically the paragraph concerning Additional Reviews for the BCNR’s address.

After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service,   Record Entries, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found   

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A.  Navy Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 11, 29 April 2005 until Present, Article 1910-152, SEPARATION BY REASON OF ALCOHOL ABUSE REHABILITATION FAILURE.

B.  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 V, Para 502, Propriety and Para 503, Equity.

ADDENDUM:  Information for the Applicant

Complaint Procedures:  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 to the Joint Service Review Activity, OUSD (P&R) PI-LP, The Pentagon, Washington, DC  20301-4000.  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.”

Additional Reviews:  Subsequent to a document review, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the 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.  If a former member has been discharged for more than 15 years, has already been granted a personal appearance hearing or has otherwise exhausted his opportunities before the NDRB, the Applicant may petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR), 2 Navy Annex, Washington, DC 20370-5100 for further review.

Service Benefits:  The Veterans Administration 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.

Employment/Educational Opportunities:  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 of the propriety and equity of the discharge.

Reenlistment/RE-code:  Since the NDRB has no jurisdiction over reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Navy, Marine Corps, or any other of the Armed Forces, the NDRB is not authorized to change a reenlistment code.  Only the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) can make changes to reenlistment codes.  Additionally, the Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities.  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.

Medical Conditions and Misconduct:  DoD disability regulations do not preclude a disciplinary separation.  Appropriate regulations stipulate that separations for misconduct take precedence over potential separations for other reasons.  Whenever a member is being processed through the Physical Evaluation Board, and subsequently is processed for an administrative involuntary separation or is referred to a court martial for misconduct, the disability evaluation is suspended.  The Physical Evaluation Board case remains in suspense pending the outcome of the non-disability proceedings.  If the action includes either a punitive or administrative discharge for misconduct or for any basis wherein an Other Than Honorable Discharge is authorized, the medical board report is filed in the member’s terminated health record.  Additionally, the NDRB does not have the authority to change a narrative reason for separation to one indicating a medical disability or other medical related reasons.  Only the Board for Correction of Naval Records can grant this type of narrative reason change.

Automatic Upgrades - 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 may 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.

Issues Concerning Bad-Conduct Discharges (BCD) – Because relevant and material facts stated in a court-martial specification are presumed by the NDRB to be established facts, issues relating to the Applicant’s innocence of charges for which he was found guilty cannot form a basis for relief.  With respect to a discharge adjudged by a special court-martial, the action of the NDRB is restricted to upgrades based on clemency.  Clemency is an act of leniency that reduces the severity of the punishment imposed.  The NDRB does not have the jurisdictional authority to review a discharge or dismissal resulting from a general court-martial.

Board Membership:  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