D E P A R T M E N T  O F  T H E  N A V Y  
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 

2 N A W  ANNEX 

WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 

ELP 
Docket No. 801-99 
30 August 1999 

This is in reference to your application for correction of your 
naval record pursuant to the provisions of Title 10, United 
States Code, Section 1552. 

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval 
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your 
application on 18 August 1999.  Your allegations of error and 
injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative 
regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this 
Board.  Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of 
your application, together with all material submitted in support 
thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations 
and policies. 

After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire 
record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was 
insufficient to establish the existence of probable material 
error or injustice. 

The Board found that you reenlisted in the Navy on 24 June 1994 
for six years as a BTC  (E-7).  At the time of your reenlistment, 
you had completed nearly 17 years of prior active service.  Your 
record reflects that prior to your reenlistment you had four 
convictions for driving under the influence (DUI) and had 
completed in-patient (level 111) alcohol rehabilitation treatment 
in April 1986.  The record further reflects that except for two 
marks of 3.8 in reliability and military behavior on 30 November 
1984, you had maintained a perfect 4.0 average in all rating 
categories on your enlisted performance evaluations through 
16 November 1995. 

On 16 November 1995 you were convicted by civil authorities of 
DUI.  The civil authorities did not adjudge a sentence and- 
deferred the imposition of punishment to your command.  On 
the same day, you received nonjudicial punishment  (NJP) for 
driving under the influence.  Punishment imposed consisted of a 
forfeiture of $1000, which was suspended for six months, and a 
punitive letter of reprimand. 

Your alcohol problems continued.  In February 1996, you were 
turned over to the ship by the shore patrol for public 
intoxication.  You completed level I11 alcohol rehabilitation 

treatment for the second time on 22 March  1996.  Then in June 
1996, you were again arrested for DUI. 

On 12 August  1996, you were notified that discharge was being 
considered by reason of misconduct due to conviction by civil 
authorities and commission of a serious offense; and by reason of 
alcohol abuse rehabilitation failure.  Although  the letter of 
notification and statement of awareness are not on file in the 
record, you apparently elected  to be represented by counsel and 
to present your case to an administrative discharge board  (ADB) 

A  report of apprehension was  filed on 21 August 1996 which 
indicated that you somehow wedged your automobile between  some 
railroad tracks.  The city police were called and you were turned 
over to the shore patrol  with whom you were uncooperative and 
refused to obey orders.  You were given a breathalyzer  test which 
registered a blood alcohol level of  .28 percent. 

You received a second NJP on 29 August  1996 for drunk and 
disorderly conduct.  Punishment consisted of forfeitures of 
$1,116 per month  for two months  and 15 days of restriction. 

On 10 September 1996, you appeared before an ADB with counsel. 
The ADB reviewed your record and heard testimony from the main 
propulsion officer, a drug and alcohol program advisor, an 
alcohol rehabilitation center counselor, and the command master 
chief.  You testified that you had two sons and daughter from a 
previous marriage, were remarried in 1994 to a woman who also had 
a drinking problem, and your drinking increased when your oldest 
son was accused of raping his sister.  You stated that after your 
son came to live with you, you suspected that your current wife 
was using drugs and having affairs, and had an abortion while you 
were undergoing level  I11 treatment.  You further testified that 
you had been given all the tools to maintain  sobriety, but were 
unable to do so with  the foregoing problems.  The ADB found that 
you had committed misconduct by reason of civil conviction, 
co~runlssion of a ser-ious offense, and alcohol abuse rehabilitation 
failure.  The ADB recommended that you be discharged under 
honorable conditions, but that separation be suspended for a 
period of 12 months. 

On 12 September 1996, the commanding officer  (CO) concurred with 
the findings and the recommendation that you be separated from 
the Naval  service, but did not recommend that the separation be 
suspended.  The CO noted that since receiving treatment in-1986, 
you had been  involved in four documented alcohol incidents and an 
undetermined number of other incidents which were not properly 
documented.  Further, you were still pending civil court action 
on the June arrest for DUI.  The CO stated that your record 
showed continuous negative involvement with alcohol over the past 
19 years, and also noted that you had failed to utilize the 

numerous opportunities provided to you through level I11 
treatment, command intervention, and professional counseling. 
The CO did not believe you were capable of remaining alcohol free 
and opined that your abuse would most likely continue.  He 
concluded that you had no potential for further useful service 
and recommended that you be separated. 

On 24 September 1996, your counsel submitted a letter in response 
to the CO1s recommendation that the discharge not be suspended. 
Counsel asserted that the ADB1s recommendation for suspension 
should not be disturbed since the CO had not heard the full story 
that was related to the ADB.  Counsel cited a litany of the 
extraordinary personal problems which contributed to your return 
to drinking, but cited no deficiencies in the ADB proceedings. 

The record reflects that in October 1996 you got drunk at a club 
with another chief who drove you home, where you got into an 
argument with him.  The police were called and the matter was 
turned over to the shore patrol.  In November 1996, you were 
apprehended in a parking lot attempting to break into a truck, 
charged with being drunk in public, and released to the shore 
patrol. 

On 8 November 1996, the Chief of Naval Personnel (CHNAVPERS) was 
advised that an ADB had recommended that your separation be 
suspended for 12 months to allow you to reach 20 years of 
service.  It was noted that retaining you on active duty posed a 
significant risk and your conduct negated any consideration for 
retirement under the Temporary Early Retirement Authorization 

On 3 December 1996, your were admitted to the hospital for a 
suicide attempt in which you attempted to hang yourself and 
ingested a significant number of Motrin and Naprosyn tablets. 

Thereafter, the CHNAVPERS forwarded your case to the Deputy Chief 
of Naval Operations (CNO) and recommended that you be separated 
with an honorable discharge by reason of misconduct due to 
commission of a serious offense.  On 11 December 1996, CNO 
directed an honorable discharge by reason of misconduct.  You 
were so discharged on 8 January 1997. 

In its review of your application the Board carefully conducted a 
thorough search of your record for any mitigating factors which 
might warrant voiding your discharge and granting you sufficient 
constructive service to allow retirement with 20 years of - 
service.  However, no such justification could be found.  The 
Board noted your two statements and service record documents 
submitted in support of your application and your explanation of 
the circumstances and family problems which contributed to your 
return to drinking.  The Board believed you received considerable 
consideration when you were allowed to complete level I11 

treatment for the second time. As a result, you were provided the 
necessary tools for maintaining sobriety and completing your 
enlistment.  While your numerous family problems may be 
considered mitigating, they do not excuse your frequent 
misconduct or absolve you of responsibility for your actions. 
The Board believes DUI is inexcusable and is not sympathetic to 
individuals who commit such offenses. 

The Board concurred with your CO1s conclusion that you had no 
potential for further service.  The Board notes that the Navy is 
very reluctant to discharge an individual with more than 19 years 
of service.  However, with two DUIs and at least five documented 
alcohol related incidents since your reenlistment, such action 
was appropriate since you had become a liability to the Navy, 
your command, and your community.  The Board particularly noted 
your claim that you have been sober since January 1997 when you 
were admitted to the psychiatric ward.  If you are now able 
maintain sobriety, it is a choice you have made and one you could 
have made while on active duty to protect your career.  Your 
administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with 
applicable regulations.  There is no indication of procedural 
errors which would have jeopardized your rights.  The Board thus 
concluded that the discharge was proper and no change is 
warranted.  Accordingly, your application has been denied.  The 
names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished 
upon request. 

It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that 
favorable action cannot be taken.  You are entitled to have the 
Board reconsider its decision upon submission of new and material 
evidence or other matter not previously considered by the Board. 
In this regard, it is important to keep in mind that a 
presumption of regularity attaches to all official records. 
Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval 
record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the 
existence of probable material error or injustice. 

Sincerely, 

W. DEAN PFEIFFER 
Executive Director 

Attorney a F  l;-aw