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

 ex-LCpl, USMC
Docket No. MD99-00491

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 990219, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable and the reason for the discharge be changed to convenience of the government.  The applicant requested 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 991213.  After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, NDRB discerned no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the applicant’s service.  The Board’s vote was unanimous that the character of the discharge shall not change.  The discharge shall remain: UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT-MARTIAL, authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6419.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

1.	Excellent performance of duties up until self referral to Level III alcohol rehabilitation.  Please review awards, certificates, and Honorable Discharge from the U.S. Army (198601989) and steadily improving Pro's and Con's from USMC as well as the Good Conduct Medal.
2.	Self-Referral to Level III after self-realization of my disease.  Please review medical records of initial contract by self-referral to Ship Chaplain on board the USS INCHON.  This referral came after reading Chesty Puller son's book Fortunate Son and the devestating effects of alcohol on his life.  This book profoundly influenced me to seek help for my increasing alcohol dependence.
3.	My sucesful completion of Level III rehabilitation and my Commands failure to follow MCO's and CDAC's recommendations.  Please review CDACS documentation of Level III rehabilitation.  Notice on Page 3 recommendations #3-5-6, all of which were denied to me due to my assignment as BN SANCO.  I must emphasize that I certainly do not believe that there was any malice in this decision, the Command simply felt that they now had a school trained Substance Abuse NCO.  I was LCPL (E-3) holding a Staff NCO billet, struggling with my own sobriety, denied the level of aftercare others were receiving and I then went on to receive a Navy Achievement Medal at a Command Inspection (this had not been done for the previous seven Command Inspections at II Marine Division).
4.	Continued excellent service even in the face of added responsibility and a lack of proper care as directed by CDAC.  Please review my Navy Achievement write up, Meritorious Corporal certificate, and rising Pro's and Con's.
5.	Eventual collapse of whole façade of normality and complete disclosure of serious problems.  Please review Psychiatric report and CDAC documentation regarding my full disclosure of alcohol dependence.
6.	Command inadequate response by denying additional Level III treatment and denying my attendance to aftercare meetings.  Please review CDAS's opinion that my Command is enabling my destructive behavior and in fact providing me alcohol on a regular basis.
7.	Continued excellent service as noted by immediate rise in Pro's and Con's.  Please review Pro's and Con's sheet which shows a dip due to NJP and then an immediate rise.
8.	Re-enlisted and was given alcohol as a re-enlistment "present" and in fact was readily given alcohol at monthly gatherings.  Please review CDAC documentation.  Also please consider that I had received an honorable discharge from the U.S. Army (1986-1989), and had already received a Honorable discharge from the Marine Corps upon re-enlistment, and was into my third enlistment in military service.
9.	Further collapse and closure of Marine Corps career.  Please review Administrative discharge request.
10.	Productive and successful member of society who awaits each new challenge, free of alcohol dependence.  Please review college transcripts, work evaluation, and recent promotion.

Documentation

In addition to the service record, there is NO DISCHARGE PACKAGE, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:

Statement from Defense Counsel
Transcript Request (2)
Transcript from Yuba College (2pgs)
Transcript from Sonoma State University
Commanding General Discharge Request
Letter from applicant (6pgs)
Letter from applicant's father
Copies from Medical Record (18pgs)
Copy of Record of Service
Copy of Combat History Award Record
Copy of DD Form 214
Copy of Good Conduct Medal Certificate
Copies of Certificates of Achievement (4)
Copy of Army Achievement Medal Certificate
Copy of Corporal Meritorious Certificate
Copy of Certificate of Good Conduct
Copy of Honorable Discharge Certificate from Marine Corps
Copy of Certificate of Reenlistment
Copy of Citation for Navy Achievement Medal
Copies of Employment Performance Appraisals (2)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   USA			860626 - 890625	HON
Active:   USMC		910422 - 950110	HON
	Inactive:  USMCR(J)		910323 - 910421	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  950111		Date of Discharge:  960113

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:  01  00  02
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  3 

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  77

Highest Rank:  Cpl

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Proficiency:  4.56 (10)		Conduct:  4.5(10)

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  Rifle Expert Badge, OSR, AGCM, AAM, NDSM, SSDRw1*, Meritorious Mast, CGM, NAM 

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  83 

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT-MARTIAL, authority:  MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6419.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:
950111:	Reenlisted at HQMC MMEA-6 for 3 years

950213:	Medical Officer evaluation indicates applicant was referred for his ETOH related UA 940713, he successfully completed Level III on 920130 with a fair prognosis for continued sobriety and recovery, he also completed Level III group aftercare on 930430.  The client stated during interview that he has drunk ETOH on four (4) occasions since his last evaluation at CDAC and on (1) one occasion he drove a car after drinking one (1) 12 oz beer, when asked if he considers this behavior to be harmful to his program or sobriety he responded negatively and minimized both his drinking behavior as well as his propensity to be at risk for future relapse.  When asked about his violation of MCO P5300.12 to remain abstinent from ETOH the client again minimize his behavior offering the rationale that he has drunk since the last interview without incident and that his command's First Sergeant often has meetings with him and others in the unit NCOs in which he provides beer for all the participants including the client.  It should be noted that the command official decision is to not send the client to a second inpatient treatment at Level III as he has been recently re-enlisted, as well as the command's desire to have him promoted to the rank of Sergeant.  His attendance of AA meetings was reported to be infrequent and the client stated during the interview that he does not care to attend AA meeting, but will comply if directed to do so When evaluated by the psychiatry department of USNH Camp Lejeune, the client was diagnosed as having Alcohol Dependence (severe) with Dysthymic Disorder (provisional) on Axis I, Personality Disorder, Not Otherwise Specified, with paranoid, schizoid, and anti-social traits on Axis II.  In the clinical psychologist's formulation section of the client's evaluation he noted that he was impressed by the client's chronic, sub-clinical dysphoria and personality disoriented behavior.  He further stated that the client's ETOH dependence was, at that time, severe requiring immediate attention.  At the conclusion of the CDAC evaluation dated 940728 the recommendation was made by the counselor for either a second inpatient treatment at Level III for Alcohol Dependence (relapse) or Administrative separation in accordance with MCO P5300.12 and MCO P1900.16 neither recommendation was implemented by the command despite these recommendations from both departments and respective clinicians.  The unit has failed to refer the client for treatment and has, in fact enabled him to continue relapse and perpetually violate applicable Marine Corp directive.  It should also be noted that the Senior Counselor of CDAC cautioned the client's First Sergeant against providing him with ETOH as well as encouraging him to drink ETOH.  The client reported no suicidal or homicidal ideation at the time of interview.

950531:	To UA, declared a deserter.

950822:	From UA, surrendered

960103:	GCMCA [Commanding General, Marine Corps Base, Camp Lejeune] determined that applicant had no potential for further service, that separation in lieu of trial by court-martial was in the best interest of the service, and directed discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of conduct triable by courts-martial.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 960113 under other than honorable conditions in lieu of trial by court-martial (A and B).  The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (C).  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 (D and E).

The applicant’s service record was considered under the standards of propriety and equity to determine if clemency could be granted in this case.  While the Board found the applicant’s service record noteworthy, there was not enough meritorious service as to upgrade the characterization of the applicant’s discharge.  Although the Board found the actions of the applicant’s command incorrect, there was nothing to indicate that the applicant was not responsible for his own actions.  Relief denied.

The following is provided for the edification of the applicant.  The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service conduct in the recharacterization of a discharge.  However, 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 the civilian life subsequent to leaving the service.  Outstanding post-service conduct, 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, is considered.  The applicant needs to produce evidence of community service, proof of non-involvement with civil authorities, and proof of not using drugs or alcohol, in order for consideration for clemency based on post-service conduct.  Relief denied.  The applicant is strongly encouraged to continue with his pursuits and is reminded that he is eligible for a personal appearance hearing provided the application is received within 15 years from the date of discharge.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Paragraph 6419, SEPARATION IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT-MARTIAL, of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16E), effective 
18 Aug 95 until present.

B.  The Manual for Courts-Martial authorizes the award of a punitive discharge if adjudged as part of the sentence upon conviction by a special or general court-martial for violation of the UCMJ, Article 86, unauthorized absence for more than 30 days.

C.  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.  

D.  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.

E.  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 obtain a copy of DoD Directive 1332.28 by writing to:

		DA Military Review Boards Agency
		Management Information and Support Directorate
		Armed Forces Reading Room
		Washington, D.C.  20310-1809

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
		Washington Navy Yard
		720 Kennon St SE Rm 309
		Washington, D.C.  20374-5023