Author: CAP
Last saved by: Department of the Navy
Company: NCPB

Docket No. ND01-01018

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

 ex-SKSR, USN
Docket No. ND01-01018

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 010731, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable.  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 020221.  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/Misconduct – commission of a serious offense, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

1.  My ability to serve was impaired by an addiction to alcohol.
2.  My average conduct, efficiency rating and proficiency marks were good prior to my last command (as was my record of promotion, which showed I was generally a good service member.
3.  I was close to finishing my tour that it was unfair to give me a bad discharge.
4.  I was unfairly pressured into accepting an other than honorable discharge
in September of 91 I was transferred to LANTFLT HEDSUPPACT on limited duty status.  While I was on an extended medical leave, my alcoholism had become full-blown and out of control.  Consequently, when I reported for duty I was late and hung over.  I was written up for an unauthorized absence, for which I believed I would be awarded forty-five days of restriction and extra duty.  As a result of this impending restriction, and facing the possibility of not being able to access alcohol for the next forty-five days, I got drunk.  The next morning I arrived late and hung over for my own captain's mast.  At that point I was told the command was going to pursue a discharge by court martial.  Shortly after that incident I received a skewed performance evaluation.  My leading petty officers (SK1 R____ and SK1 B____) told me they had given me much higher marks than were ultimately reflected in my final evaluation.  Although low marks in reliability, personal behavior, military bearing and performance may have been justifiable, this evaluation was not an accurate picture of my overall performance.  An example of this was the 2.0 I was given for my rating knowledge.  I completed SK "A" school sixth in my class with a final grade point average of 91.44. I had just passed my SK3 exam with excellent scores for the second time.  I had played an integral role in my previous command's successful Supply Maintenance Inspection (which they had previously failed).  In addition, I received low marks in two areas in which I have always excelled, my speaking and writing abilities (see ASVAB scores).  A direct comparison between this evaluation (given by LANTFLT HEDSUPPACT January 92) and my previous evaluation,(given by U.S.S. Hoist January 91) reveals an obvious change in behavior due to my alcoholism.  Most notable are the comments made by U.S.S. Hoist stating I possessed "nearly unlimited potential" while LANTFLT HEDSUPPACT believed I had "not shown the potential to become a good storekeeper or sailor." LANTFLT HEDSUPPACT made this determination based on four months of limited duty service in spite of contrary statements from my leading petty officers.  My previous evaluation covered a one year period on board the U.S.S. Hoist.  During this time I admitted my alcohol problem to NC1 G_ (the command alcohol and drug counselor).  No steps were taken to afford me an opportunity to deal with the problem while continuing in active duty service.  Instead, under the threat of court martial, I was offered an other than honorable discharge.  The command yeoman told me it was similar to a general discharge, and that I would still have access to my veterans benefits.  Since I could not afford an attorney, I had no hope of winning the court martial.  Therefore I accepted my discharge because it was presented to me as my best option.  Because I blamed the Navy for my drinking, it continued to be a problem for many years before I got help.  I have now been a sober member of Alcoholics Anonymous for more than four years.  I can see even more clearly now how alcohol was the cause of my behavioral problems during my time of service.  I'm back in school now at Arizona State University for the first time since I got sober.  The last time I was a student there five years ago I was put on academic probation.  This year I made the Deans Honor List both semesters (including straight A's this Spring).  I know and accept responsibility for my actions and behaviors, both past and present.  However, I believe the command failed in it's response to my behavior, and did nothing to address an obvious problem.  In the end, they saw my discharge as the simplest solution.  They gave no regard for me or the years of good service I had provided at previous commands.

Documentation

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

Copy of DD Form 214

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   USN			None
	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	881230 - 890125	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  890126		Date of Discharge:  920420

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    03  02  25
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  4 

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  90

Highest Rate:  SKSN

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.70 (2)	Behavior:  3.70 (2)		OTA:  3.70

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NDSM 

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None 

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Misconduct – commission of a serious offense, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

900426:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: UA.
	Award:  CCU for 25 days, forfeiture of $200.00 per month for 1 month(suspended for 3 months), reduction to E-1 (suspended for 3 months).  No indication of appeal in the record.

900524:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86:  UA.
	Award:  CCU for 30 days.  No indication of appeal in the record.

911127:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: UA (under 24 hours/5 specifications).
	Award:  Forfeiture of $439.05 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to E-2.  No indication of appeal in the record.

911127:	Retention Warning:  Advised of deficiency: CO's NJP held onboard USS HOIST on 900426 for violation of Article 86 UCMJ: UA, and CO's NJP held on 900524 for violation of Article 86 UCMJ: UA.  CO's NJP held at HAS on 911127 for violation of Article 86 UCMJ: UA (5 Specifications), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

911203:	CAAC evaluation determined the applicant to be alcohol dependent and drug abuser in remission.

920122:	Medical officer's evaluation found applicant alcohol dependence, recommended Level III Treatment.

920210:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: (2 Specifications), Absence without leave (under 24 hours), violation of UCMJ Article 134: Drunk on duty.
	Award:  Restriction to the CINCLANTFLT COMPOUND for 30 days, extra duty for 30 days, reduction to E-1.  No indication of appeal in the record.

920226:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to pattern of misconduct.

920227:  	Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights.

920305:	Commanding officer recommended discharge general under honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to pattern of misconduct. 

920324:  	Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights.

920324:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense as evidenced by committing violation of UCMJ, Article 134, Drunk on duty.

920325:	Commanding officer recommended discharge general under honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense as evidenced by committing violation of UCMJ, Article 134, Drunk on duty.  

920408:	BUPERS directed the applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 920420 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A).  The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (B).  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 (C and D).

Issue 1.  The Board found that the applicant’s alcohol dependence did not mitigate his misconduct.  The record clearly reflects his willful disregard for the requirements of military discipline and demonstrated that he was unfit for further service.  The record is devoid of evidence that the applicant was not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions. Relief denied.

Issues 2 and 3.  A characterization of service of under other than 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 by award of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for offenses triable by court-martial on four occasions and adverse counseling entries on another occasion.  The applicant’s final nonjudicial punishment constituted the commission of a serious offense.  The applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service falls short of that required for an honorable characterization of service.  The applicant’s length of service is only one of several considerations in determining the characterization of service. An upgrade to honorable would be inappropriate.  Relief denied.

Issue 4. There is no evidence in the official record, nor did the applicant provide any certifiable documentation that there was an impropriety during his enlistment concerning his allegations of being denied medical treatment.  The Board found no impropriety in its review of the applicant’s performance evaluations.  The Board found no inequity or impropriety in the applicant’s administrative separation proceedings.  Relief denied.

The applicant’s discharge characterization accurately reflects his service to his country.  The discharge was proper and equitable.  Normally, to permit relief, an error or injustice must have existed during the period of enlistment in question.  No such error or injustice occurred during the applicant’s enlistment.  Additionally, 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 the service.  However, the NDRB is authorized to consider outstanding post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge, 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.  Verifiable proof of any post-service accomplishments must be provided in order for the applicant to claim post-service conduct and behavior as a reason to upgrade a less than Honorable discharge.  Evidence of continuing educational pursuits, an employment record, documentation of community service, certification of non-involvement with civil authorities and proof of his not using drugs, are examples of verifiable documents that should have been provided to receive consideration for relief, based on post-service conduct.  The applicant did not provide sufficient documentation to warrant an upgrade to his discharge.  He is reminded that he remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of his discharge.  The applicant can provide additional documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments at that time.  Legal representation at a personal appearance hearing is highly recommended but not required.  Relief denied.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), effective 15 Aug 91 until 
04 Mar 93, Article 3630600, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT – COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE.

B.  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.  

C.  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.

D.  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 view DoD Directive 1332.28 and other Decisional Documents by going online at "afls10.jag.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:

		Naval Council of Personnel Boards
		Attn:  Naval Discharge Review Board
		720 Kennon Street SE RM 309
		Washington Navy Yard DC  20374-5023

The remaining portion of this document is divided into 4 Parts: Part I - Applicant’s Issues and Documentation, Part II - Summary of Service, Part III – Rationale for Decision and Pertinent Regulation/Law, Part IV - Information for the Applicant.
INDEX:  A6730/A9317/A9201/A9401/A9221/A9217/A9223