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

 ex-EMFR, USN
Docket No. ND03-00089

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 20021016, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable or general/under honorable conditions.  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 20030912.  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, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-146, formerly Article 3630620.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as submitted

1.  I believe my discharge should be upgraded due to the fact that I was a good sailor.  My drinking is what ruined my career.  I feel ashamed and always live in disgrace due to my misconduct.  I was 4 months shy of completing my active duty before popping positive.  I think that should count for something.  My mother was extremely ill from cancer at the time and I made a bad choice.  I very respectfully request that the Navy please consider upgrading my discharge.  I don’t think that a simple mistake should have to haunt one for the rest of my life.  Thank you very much for taking the time to review my case.

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):

	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	19960918		COG
	Active:   None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  19960919		Date of Discharge:  20000712

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    03  09  24	Does not exclude lost time
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  17			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  59

Highest Rate:  EM3

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  0.00 (0)	Behavior:  0.00 (0)		OTA:  0.00

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  None

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  14

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-146, formerly 3630620.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

990205:	Applicant diagnosed as EOTH dependent.

990319:	Retention Warning:  Advised of deficiency (Alcohol related incident to wit: second incident – security referral due to drunk and disorderly conduct on December 1998, BAC 0.33.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning. 

000518:	Applicant successfully completed treatment.

000120:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence from 991113 to 991116 (3 days), violation of UCMJ, Article 117: Provoking speeches towards an MAA, violation of UCMJ, Article 128 (3 specs): Assault upon three shipmates, violation of UCMJ, Article 134: Drunk and disorderly conduct.
	Award: Forfeiture of $612 per month for 2 months, restriction for 60 days, reduction to EMFN.  No indication of appeal in the record.

000522:	Summary Court-Martial.
Charge I:  violation of the UCMJ, Article 86:Specification: Unauthorized absence from 0700, 000411 to 0730, 000422 (11 days/surrendered).Charge II: violation of the UCMJ, Article 87:Specification: Missing ship movement.Charge III: violation of the UCMJ, Article 92:Specification: Dereliction in the performance of duties, to wit: failed to remain awake while standing switchboard watch.Charge IV: violation of the UCMJ, Article 112A:Specification: Wrongful use of a controlled substance, to wit: ecstasy.Finding:  to Charge I, II, III, and IV the specifications thereunder, guilty.Sentence: Forfeiture of $330.00, confinement for 24 days, reduced to EMFRCA action 000531:  Sentence approved and ordered executed.

000531:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense and drug abuse.

000531:	Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights.

000604:	Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense and drug abuse (use).

000607:	Commander, Carrier Group FIVE directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse (use).
PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20000712 under other than honorable conditions for
 misconduct due to drug abuse (use) (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 Applicant states his discharge should be upgraded because he was a good sailor and drinking ruined his career.  Additionally, he states his mother was ill with cancer which caused him to make a bad choice.

The Applicant established a pattern of misconduct.  His service record contained a retention warning for being drunk and disorderly; one NJP for violation of UCMJ Articles 86 (unauthorized absence),117 (provoking speech), 128 X3 (assault) and 134 (drunk and disorderly); and a Summary Court Martial for violation of UCMJ articles 86, 87 (missing ship’s movement), 92 (dereliction of duty), and 112A (drug abuse).  There is no indication from the service record that the Applicant was a good sailor but there is clear evidence that he had a destructive drinking habit.  There is no indication from the Applicant’s service record that he attempted to use his chain of command to help him deal with his mother’s illness.  The discharge was proper and equitable.  Relief denied.

The following is provided for the edification of the Applicant.  Normally, to permit relief, an error or inequity must have existed during the period of enlistment in question.  No errors or injustices were discovered in the execution of the Applicant’s discharge.  The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors 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 can be considered.  Examples of documentation to forward to the Board for consideration include proof of educational pursuits, verifiable employment record(s), documentation of community service, certification of non-involvement with civil authorities, and credible evidence of substance free lifestyle.  At this time, the applicant has not provided any documentation for the Board to consider.  Therefore, no relief will be granted.

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.  Representation at a personal appearance hearing is recommended but not required.
Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 27, effective 27 March 2000 - 11 Feb 2001, Article 1910-146 (formerly 3630620), Separation by Reason of Misconduct - Drug Abuse.

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 "afls14.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