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

Docket No. ND02-00226

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

 ex-SR, USNR
Docket No. ND02-00226

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 020109, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable.  The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review.  The applicant listed the Veterans of Foreign Wars as the representative on the DD Form 293. In the acknowledgement letter the applicant was informed that he was approaching the 15 year point for review by this Broad and was encouraged to attend a personal appearance hearing in the Washington, D.C. area.  The applicant did not respond.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 020731.  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, as submitted

1.  Applicant indicated above requested that Veterans of Foreign Wars act as counsel concerning his application.  His records were reviewed on April 15, 2002 and the following comments are hereby submitted:  We fully support the contention for & upgraded discharge.  We refer this case to the Board for their careful and compassionate consideration and request the applicant's discharge be reviewed for upgrade discharge to honorable.

Documentation

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

None

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   None
	Inactive: None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  861016		Date of Discharge:  871014

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    00  11  21
	Inactive:  00  00  08

Age at Entry:  20			Years Contracted:  8

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  83

Highest Rate:  SA

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  NMF		Behavior:  NMF		OTA:  NMF

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  None 

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:

870417:	Drug and Alcohol Evaluation: Applicant believed to be in need of Level II or III (inpatient) program.

870507:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 134: Drunk and disorderly on 24 Apr 87.
	Award: Forfeiture of $369 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days.  No indication of appeal in the record.

870507:	Retention Warning:  Advised of deficiency (incompetent for the performance of your duties due to overindulgence of alcoholic beverages.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning. 
	
870730:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92 (2 specs):  Failure to obey order, regulation, to wit: disobey lawful order on 20 Jul 87.
	Award: Forfeiture of $304 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to SR.  No indication of appeal in the record.

870828:	Applicant underwent inpatient treatment for alcohol dependence.  Applicant failed to follow post hospitalization protocol with at least one incident of drinking while on antabuse.  Applicant considered to have failed treatment and should be considered for administrative separation.

870904:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of alcohol abuse rehabilitation failure as evidenced by medical officer's evaluation of 28 August 1987 and misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense as evidenced by CO's NJP of 7 May 1987 for violation of UCMJ Article 134 and CO's NJP of 30 July 1987 for violation of UCMJ Article 92 (2 specifications).

870908:  	Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights.

870914:	Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of alcohol abuse rehabilitation failure and misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense. 

871002:	CNMPC 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 871014 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:  There is no evidence in the official record, nor did the applicant provide any certifiable documentation that there was any impropriety or inequity during his enlistment or in the processing of his discharge.  The applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflects his willful disobedience of the orders and regulations that regulate good order and discipline in the naval service.  The applicant’s repeated misconduct, as evidenced by two CO’s NJP, falls short of that required for an honorable characterization of service.  Relief not warranted.

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 occurred during the period of enlistment in question.  No such error or injustice occurred during the applicant’s enlistment.  The NDRB is authorized to consider outstanding 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.  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, a positive employment record, documentation of community service, certification of non-involvement with civil authorities, 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 any post service documentation to warrant an upgrade to his discharge.  Relief denied.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560A), effective 15 Jun 87 until 
10 Jan 89, Article 3630600, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED MEMBERS 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:  A6750/A0100/A9500/A9217/A9223/A9221