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

 ex-SH3, USN
Docket No. ND03-00751

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20030326.  The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable.  The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review.  The Applicant listed State of Connecticut, Department of Veterans Affairs as the representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20040224.  After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the Applicant’s service was discovered by the NDRB.  The Board’s vote was unanimous that the character of the discharge shall not change.  The discharge shall remain: GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-140 (formerly 3630600).

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Issues submitted by Applicant and representative, as stated on the application:

1.  “ISSUES:  PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT CHARACTERIZED DISCHARGE DUE TO CIRCUMSTANCES (STATEMENT 29 JAN 02) IS OVERLY SEVERE. PROOF SUBMITTED THAT NO ALCOHOL DEPENDENCE EXISTS, NO DIAGNOSIS PAST OR CURRENT.

I WAS ALSO UNDER TREMENDOUS STRESS HAVING BEEN DIAGNOSED WITH HODGKINS DISEASE, AND BELIEVE THIS CONTRIBUTED TO MY INABILITY TO MAKE THE CORRECT CHOICES AT TIMES. ”

Documentation

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

Applicant’s DD Form 214
Southeastern Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence, Inc. letter, dated January 24, 2003
Job/character reference, dated August 5, 2002
Letter from State of Connecticut, Department of Veterans Affairs, dated January 30, 2003
Statement from Applicant, dated January 29, 2002
One page from Applicant’s service record

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	960731 - 960903	COG
	Active:   None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  960904		Date of Discharge:  020306

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    05  06  03
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  4 (24 month extension)

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  74

Highest Rate:  SH3

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  1.00 (1)	Behavior:  1.00 (1)		OTA:  1.43

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  GCM (2), AFEM, SSDR

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-140 (formerly 3630600).

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

980501:	Retention Warning:  Advised of deficiency (COP disciplinary review board 28 Apr 98 for violation of UCMJ Article 86: Unauthorized absence from appointed place of duty.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

980630:	Retention Warning:  Advised of deficiency (Executive Officer Inquire of 30 June 1998 for violation UCMJ, Article 86, failure to go to an appointed place of duty, and violation UCMJ, Article 134, drunkenness-incapacitation for performance of duties through prior wrongful indulgence in intoxicating liquor or any drug.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

980828:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Failure to go to appointed place of duty.
	Award: Forfeiture of $100 per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duty for 7 days, reduction to SN.  Reduction suspended for 6 months.  No indication of appeal in the record.

980828:	Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (CO’s NJP of 28 August 1998 for violation UCMJ, Article 86, failure to go to appointed place of duty.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.
	    
0003XX:	Applicant recommended for Level II treatment but did not attend.  [Extracted from letter from Naval Medical Center, Portsmouth, VA, dated 020314.]

0012XX:	Applicant recommended for Level III treatment but did not attend.  [Extracted from letter from Naval Medical Center, Portsmouth, VA, dated 020314.]

010412:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 81: Conspiracy, violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Failure to obey an order or regulation, violation of UCMJ, Article 108: Military property of the United States – sale loss, damage, destruction, or wrongful disposition, violation of UCMJ, Article 110: Improper hazarding of vessel.
	Award: Forfeiture of $642.30 per month for 2 months, restriction for 60 days, reduction to SN.  No indication of appeal in the record.

0107XX:	Applicant found alcohol dependent after an incident with security.  [Extracted from letter from Naval Medical Center, Portsmouth, VA, dated 020314.]

0109XX:	Applicant found to be alcohol dependent and initially refused treatment.  [Extracted from letter from Naval Medical Center, Portsmouth, VA, dated 020314.]

0110XX:	Applicant attended Level III treatment.  [Extracted from letter from Naval Medical Center, Portsmouth, VA, dated 020314.]

011108:	Addictions Rehabilitation Department, narrative summary: Axis I: Alcohol dependence, nicotine dependence, noncompliance with treatment.  Axis II: No diagnosis.  Axis III: History of Hodgkin’s Disease.

011108:	Applicant discharge from ARD due to non compliance.

011108:	Applicant refused rehabilitative treatment.

011207:	PEB found Applicant fit for full duty.  [Extracted from letter from Naval Medical Center, Portsmouth, VA, dated 020314.]

011220:	Applicant accepted PEB findings.  [Extracted from letter from Naval Medical Center, Portsmouth, VA, dated 020314.]

020211:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with a characterization of general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct, misconduct due to commission of a serious offense and alcohol abuse rehabilitation failure.

020211:	Applicant advised of rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights except the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation 

020211:	Commanding Officer recommended discharge with a characterization of general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and alcohol abuse rehabilitation failure.

020326:	Commander, Navy Region, Mid-Atlantic, Norfolk, VA directed the Applicant's discharge general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20020306 with a characterization of general (under honorable conditions) for misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct (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:  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.  While he may feel that his history of Hodgkin’s disease was a contributing factor, it does not mitigate the Applicant’s disobedience of the orders and directives that regulate good order and discipline in the naval service, demonstrating he was unsuitable for further service.  His service record is marred by award of non-judicial punishment (NJP) on two separate occasions for numerous alcohol related offenses.  Additionally, the Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing educational opportunities as requested in the issue.  Regulations limit the Board’s review to a determination on the propriety and equity of the discharge.  In the Applicant’s case, the Board could discern no impropriety or inequity and therefore considered the Applicant’s discharge proper and equitable.   Relief denied.   

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, a positive employment record, an alcohol-free lifestyle, and certification of community service and non-involvement with civil authorities are examples of verifiable proof that can be submitted.   At this time, the Board determined that the documentation submitted by the Applicant does not mitigate his misconduct while on active duty.  Relief denied.

The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of 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.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 18, effective
12 Dec 1997 until 21 Aug 2002, Article 1910-140 (formerly 3630600), SEPARATION BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT - PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT.

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