ex- HT3, 

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20160926
Characterization of Service Received:   
Narrative Reason for Discharge:   ALCOHOL REHABILITATION FAILURE
Authority for Discharge:   MILPERSMAN 1910-152 [ALCOHOL REHABILITATION FAILURE] 

Applicant’s Request:	Characterization change to:	
Narrative Reason change to: NONE REQUESTED
Reentry Code change to: NONE REQUESTED

Summary of Service

Prior Creditable Service:
Inactive:	 	             	Active:	 

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment:  20000314	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Extension
Date of Discharge:  20021031	Highest Rank/Rate:  HT3	
Length of Service:   Year(s)     Month(s)   17 Day(s)
Education Level:  	AFQT:  40

Evaluation Marks (# of occasions):  Performance/Proficiency: 2.6 (3)   Behavior/Conduct: 1.3 (3)   OTA: 2.33 
Fitness Reports: 

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	NDSM NAVY "E" SSDR (2) OSR (2) 

Periods of UA:  NONE
Periods of CONF:  NONE
Other Time Lost per DD214:  NONE

NJP:    SCM:   SPCM:   CIVIL ARREST:    CC:  

Retention Warning Counseling:  

- 20020924:	For Supervisory referral, you were screened on 20020726 by the LIP and were determined to be an alcohol abuser and required Level I (Outpatient) Treatment. 

NDRB Documentary Review Conducted (date):	20081009
NDRB Documentary Review Docket Number:	ND08-01273
NDRB Documentary Review Findings:		Proper as issued and that no change is warranted.

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

The NDRB did note administrative error(s) on the original DD Form 214: 

	 Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, should read:  “NATIONAL DEFENSE SERVICE MEDAL, NAVY "E" RIBBON, SEA SERVICE DEPLOYMENT RIBBON (2), OVERSEAS SERVICE RIBBON (2), LETTER OF APPRECIATION”
	
	The NDRB will recommend to Commander, Navy Personnel Command or Commandant of the Marine Corps that the DD 214 be corrected as appropriate.

Types of Documents Submitted/reviewed

	DD 214:		Service/Medical Record:		Other Records:	
	Employment:		Finances:		Education/Training:	
	Health/Medical Records:		Rehabilitation/Treatment:		Criminal Records:	
	Personal Documentation:		Community Service:		References:	
	Department of VA letter:		Other Documentation:	

Additional Statements

	From Applicant:		From/To Representation:		From/To Congress member:	
 
Types of Witnesses Who Testified

	Expert:  			Character:    

	Witness E-1:			Witness C-1:	
	Witness E-2:			Witness C-2:

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A.  Navy Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560D), re-issued October 2002, effective 22 August 2002 until 28 April 2005, Article 1910-152, SEPARATION BY REASON OF ALCOHOL REHABILITATION.

B.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part IV, Para 403m(7)(a), Presumption Concerning Court-Martial Specifications.

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

Applicant’s Issues

1.	Applicant desires an upgrade in her characterization of service in order to make use of her GI Bill benefit.
2.	She wishes to pursue healthcare treatment through the Veterans Administration (VA).
3.	Applicant desires to purchase long-term health insurance and life insurance which has been denied due to her contracting Hepatitis B while on Active Duty.
4.	The Applicant contends her discharge is inequitable because she was suffering from depression and anxiety related to the deaths of friends on the USS Cole and at the Twin Towers. 
5.	The Applicant contends her discharge is inequitable because her Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure represented an isolated incident in 31 months of otherwise honorable service.
6.  	The Applicant contends her discharge is improper because it reflected retaliation by the Chief’s Mess for reporting sexual harassment.

Discussion

Date:  20180111		Location:  WASHINGTON D.C.	Representation:  

The Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB), under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge, is authorized to change the character of service and the reason for discharge if such change is warranted.  In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the Applicant.  The Board completed a thorough review of the circumstances that led to the discharge and the discharge process to ensure the pertinent standards of equity and propriety were met.

As a result of the Applicant’s claim of PTSD, TBI, Military Sexual Trauma, or a mental health condition, and in accordance with 10 U.S.C. § 1553, the NDRB included a member who is a physician, clinical psychologist, or psychiatrist.  Additionally, and pursuant to § 1553, the NDRB reviewed the case with liberal consideration that PTSD, TBI, or Military Sexual Trauma potentially contributed to the circumstances resulting in the discharge of a lesser characterization.  A review of the record revealed that the Applicant did not deploy in support of a contingency operation, and so this case did not warrant an expedited review in accordance with § 1553.

The Applicant's record of service included:

1 

Based on the member’s refusal to attend the alcohol rehabilitation program recommended by a medical provider, an act that qualifies as a Alcohol Treatment Failure by the Applicant, the command administratively processed the Applicant for separation.   When notified of administrative separation processing, the Applicant  her rights to consult with a qualified counsel and submit a written statement.   

:  Applicant desires an upgrade in her characterization of service in order to make use of her GI Bill benefit.  The NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of facilitating access to VA benefits.  Regulations limit the NDRB’s review solely to a determination of the propriety and the equity of a discharge.  As such, this issue does not serve to provide a foundation upon which the NDRB can grant relief.  However, the Board did complete a thorough review of the circumstances that led to the discharge and the discharge process and this is discussed in more detail, below.  Relief denied; non-decisional.

Issues 2 and 3:    Applicant wishes to pursue healthcare through the Veterans Administration (VA) and desires to purchase longterm health insurance and life insurance which has been denied due to her contracting Hepatitis B while on Active Duty.  Again, The NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge to ensure access to civilian benefit systems.  The Applicant is directed to the Addendum, specifically, the paragraph regarding the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), who determine eligibility for post-service benefits, not the NDRB.  The VA conducts its own determination of eligibility based on service records and input from an Applicant upon their request.  Typically, with a General discharge, a veteran she is eligible for VA healthcare benefits for service-connected diagnoses.  The NDRB searched for a diagnosis of Hepatitis B in both the member’s electronic and hard-copy medical records to assist with facilitating this process for her; however, none could be found.  If she has other documentation, she can utilize it to appeal to the VA.  The Applicant should refer to the Veterans Administration website (http://www1.va.gov/opa/Is1/1.asp) for additional assistance regarding a benefit determination review.  Relief denied; non-decisional.

4:  The Applicant contends her discharge is inequitable because she was suffering from depression and anxiety related to the deaths of friends on the USS Cole and at the Twin Towers.  During her hearing, she discussed the death of a sailor on the USS Cole with whom she had attended Boot Camp; she could not recall his last name and was confused if his first name was A_ or E_.  The Board recognizes that the death of a casual acquaintance serving in similar circumstances can be upsetting.  However, the record lacks any diagnosis of depression or anxiety.  Also, the Applicant had no misconduct, so there is no reason for applying mitigation based on this factor.  Relief denied.

Issue 5:  The Applicant contends her discharge is inequitable because her Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure represented an isolated incident in 31 months of otherwise honorable service.

The Applicant described to the Board how, in a moment of frustration while being counselled, after she had made complaint about the way women in the galley were treated by the Chief therein, she stated she said, “I need a drink!”  It was an expression only as they were out to sea at the time and she was not consuming alcohol on the ship.    She was referred to the DAPA for further evaluation; the referral is listed as a “Supervisor Referral” and the reason being “gut reaction drinking.”  It noted that she had not had any Alcohol-Related Incidents, was in no legal trouble, and had no work or safety problems related to alcohol.  The outcome of this evaluation is somewhat in question as it states she was physiologically dependent (which would be very difficult to be in a deployed setting) but yet only recommended Level 1 for treatment.  The Applicant stated to the Board, and her medical record supports this assertion, that she was amenable to going to AA meetings and seeing the Fleet and Family Services Center anger management class.  She initially signed that she would accept treatment; however when she later realized this involved being sent away from the ship TAD around the same time as her husband was being transferred, she declined attending.  This in turn led to her administrative separation, which she did not protest by way of seeking counsel, writing a statement, or requesting Captain’s Mast.

The characterization of service for Alcohol Treatment Failures is typically a General.  However, most involve an Alcohol-Related Incident or two.  The Applicant has no incidents of misconduct in her record.  However, based on the three evaluations found in her official record (dated August 2001, June 2002, and October 2002), the Applicant has an OTA of 2.33; an OTA of 2.50 or higher is required for an Honorable discharge.  The NDRB recognizes that she likely has at least one additional, earlier evaluation that is missing and is likely stronger, which enabled her to promote to Petty Officer fairly quickly; if her summary trait average from that evaluation were included, she may well have an OTA at 2.50 or above and hence be eligible for an Honorable discharge.  Should she locate this evaluation, she may bring this case to the Board of Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) for another review; information on this process can be found in the addendum.  The Applicant had difficulty maintaining her weight, which accounted for some of her below average marks.  However, Block 43 comments in her 2002 evaluations indicate she was an unmotivated sailor and had performance issues as well.  Lastly, her DAPA screening and her later psychological evaluation indicate she had been treated for drug usage (marijuana, acid) prior to entry in the Navy, which was not disclosed at her MEPS physical.  The Board found that the combination of her refusing alcohol treatment, not maintaining weight standards, having performance difficulties, and the evidence suggesting fraudulent enlistment comprise sufficient grounds to warrant a General discharge.  Relief denied.

Issue 6:  The Applicant contends her discharge is improper because it reflected retaliation by the Chief’s Mess for reporting sexual harassment.

The Applicant was a Hull Technician back in 2001, an unusual rate for a woman.  However, it was in her time as a Food  Service Assistant that she ran into problem with Chief D____ in the galley making too many suggestive remarks and being too hands-on with her and the other women working there.  The Applicant reported this and was promptly transferred back to her home division.  However, her Chief expressed discontent with her for “making waves.”  She believes her this was the reason she was referred to the DAPA and that the treatment that was recommended was purposefully timed to interfere with her planned leave prior to her husband’s departure.

The Board considered her testimony but did not find corroborating evidence, to include a lack of discussion of this perspective when she did see the psychologist.  While it is plausible, particularly during a time when the Navy was newly trying to address sexual harassment and developing better reporting mechanisms, the Board does not find it significant enough to mitigate her discharge because ultimately she, herself, elected to decline Alcohol Treatment.  Relief denied.

Decision

After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s issues, summary of service,  record entries, and discharge process, the Board found .  Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall  GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS), the narrative reason for separation shall  ALCOHOL REHABILITATION FAILURE with a corresponding separation code of JPD, and the reentry code shall  RE-4.  The Applicant is not eligible for further reviews by the NDRB.  The Applicant may petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records, 701 South Courthouse Road, Suite 1001, Arlington, VA 22204-2490 for further review using DD Form 149.  

ADDENDUM:  Information for the Applicant

Complaint Procedures: If you believe 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/.  More information is available at http://www.secnav.navy.mil/mra/CORB/pages/ndrb/default.aspx.

Additional Reviews: After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance or telephonic hearing, provided the application is received at the NDRB within 15 years of the Applicant’s 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.  There are veterans organizations such as the American Legion and the Disabled American Veterans that are willing to provide guidance to former service members in their efforts to obtain a discharge upgrade.  If a former member has been discharged for more than 15 years, has already been granted a personal appearance hearing or has otherwise exhausted their opportunities before the NDRB, the Applicant may petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR), 701 South Courthouse Road, Suite 1001, Arlington, VA 22204-2490, or http://www.secnav.navy.mil/mra/bcnr/Pages/default.aspx for further review.

Service Benefits: The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determines eligibility for post-service benefits, not the NDRB.  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 NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment or educational opportunities.  Regulations limit the NDRB’s review to a determination of the propriety and equity of the discharge.

Reenlistment/RE-code: Effective 6 February 2015, the NDRB is authorized to change a NDRB Applicant’s Reenlistment Code if related to an accompanying change in discharge characterization or narrative, but this authority is strictly limited to those cases where an applicant’s narrative reason or characterization of discharge is changed and that change warrants revision of the previously issued reenlistment code.  Additionally, the NDRB 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 is processed subsequently for an administrative involuntary separation or is referred to a court martial for misconduct, the disability evaluation is suspended 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 BCNR can grant this type of narrative reason change.

Automatic Upgrades: There is no law or regulation that provides for an unfavorable discharge to be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct subsequent to leaving naval service.

Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and/or Traumatic Brain Injury: For all claims involving PTSD and/or TBI, the NDRB’s review implemented the guidance set forth in the SECDEF Memorandum of 3 September 2014 (Supplemental guidance to Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Discharge Upgrade Requests by Veterans Claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder).  In accordance with U.S. Code, Title X, Section 1553 (d)(1) & d(2), the NDRB included a member who is a physician, clinical psychologist, or psychiatrist and accorded the case sufficient priority to achieve an expedited resolution and a final decision.

Post-Service Conduct: The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge.  Outstanding post-service conduct, 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, is considered during Board reviews.  Documentation to support a post-service conduct upgrade includes, but is not limited to: a verifiable continuous employment record; marriage and children’s birth certificates (if applicable); character witness statements; documentation of community or church service; certification of non-involvement with civil authorities; evidence of financial stability or letters of good standing from banks, credit card companies, or other financial institutions; attendance at or completion of higher education (official transcripts); and documentation of a drug-free lifestyle.   The Applicant is advised that completion of these items alone does not guarantee the upgrade of an unfavorable discharge, as each discharge is reviewed by the Board on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate  in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member’s overall character.

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 NDRB 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.

Military Sexual Trauma: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) uses the term "military sexual trauma" (MST) to refer to experiences of sexual assault or repeated, threatening sexual harassment experienced while on federal active duty, active duty for training, or inactive duty training.  To get confidential one-on-one help please contact the MST Coordinator at your nearest VA Medical Center or Call Safe Helpline at 1-877-995-5247 or visit www.mentalhealth.va.gov/msthome.asp.

Reporting Military Sexual Trauma: To report a military sexual trauma, you can make an anonymous report to the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) by Text or Online.  The NCIS Tip Line provides service members, veterans and civilians a safe, discreet and ANONYMOUS option to report criminal and force protection threats within the USN and USMC without concerns of retaliation.  To report a crime by Text: Text  274637 (CRIMES); Type “NCIS” at the top of the message; and include as much detail as possible to ensure your tip can effectively be investigated.  To send your ANONYMOUS Tip via the online, go to https://www.tipsubmit.com/webtipsNAV.aspx?AgencyID=840.

Suicide Prevention: Veterans in emotional crisis or their loved ones can call the free and confidential Veterans Crisis Line at 1-800-273-8255 (then press 1); or chat online at http://www.veteranscrisisline.net, or send a text message to 838255 to connect with a caring, qualified Veteran Affairs Responder who can deal with any immediate crisis.