Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500622
Original file (ND0500622.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-HM3, USN
Docket No. ND05-00622

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20050228. The Applicant requests the reason for the discharge be changed to remove “Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure” and change his separation code from JPD to JBM. The Applicant requests 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 20050608. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, no impropriety or inequity in the narrative reason for the Applicant’s discharge. The Board’s vote was unanimous that the narrative reason for discharge shall not change. The discharge shall remain: HONORABLE/ ALCOHOL REHABILITATION FAILURE, authority: MILPERSMAN, Article 3630550.


PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

 Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

1. “My discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident in 38 months of service with no other adverse action. Also, discharge was not subjected to JAG representations NJP hearing. See attached affadvit marked “affidavit #1”.”

 2. “Affidavit #1

I was honorably discharged from the military for alcohol rehabilitation failure without ever having a negative incident during my military time served. I was never afforded the opportunity to speak to my commanding officer, an NJP hearing, JAG representation, or a DAPA representative for the circumstances leading to my forced discharge. In contrast, I also received my Good Conduct Medal, which is only afforded to those who do not have any disciplinary actions on their service records. My only transgression was to address a family history of alcoholism before it took hold of my life.

In The early 90s I was stationed with VAW-115, Carrier Airwing 5, NAF Atsugi, Japan. I was 19-21 years old and allowed to drink alcohol in Japan. I have a strong family history of alcoholism. At the time I was supervised by Dr. S_ T_, a Flight Surgeon with CAG 5. He was then a LCDR who noticed my tendency to overindulge in my drinking. He and I decided, despite having no alcohol related incidences, that I should voluntarily go to a level 3, inpatient alcohol treatment program. I agreed and participated in the program. I trusted him as a physician, an officer, and a friend. A few days after treatment ended I went on holiday leave in Washington state and then reported to a new duty station VS-24 at NAS Cecil Field in Jacksonville, Florida. It is noteworthy that a sudden life change after treatment is not recommended.

One morning, I arrived at my worksite late and my lead petty officer swore he smelled alcohol on me. A blood test revealed no alcohol in my system. I did admit being at a bar the previous evening. I was subjected to a fit for duty exam which I performed and was found fit for duty, pleasant and cooperative. Regardless, paperwork was begun for my discharge since I had attended the third tear of alcohol treatment. But not level 1 or 2 and certainly not for any disciplinary reasons. I was also not sent to the command DAPA representative as recommended by Dr B.W. J_. In fact, I never met my command DAPA at VS-24 for the recommended AA meetings and placement in an aftercare program.

At the time, NAS Cecil Field was closing and a JAG officer was unavailable to counsel me. I have come to this realization since my discharge. At the time, I could not understand why the NAS Cecil Field JAG office remained closed in spite of my many visits. I was too new to the area to know either NAS Cecil Field or NAS Jacksonville’s resources. I also, had little time to find transportation to NAS Jacksonville to discuss my options. I was also never subjected to an NJP hearing or court marshal. A few days later I was in a rented moving truck and on my way back to Seattle.

Since my plan in the Navy was to enjoy travel in the military for 2 years and then to save money for 2 years, I was left with little savings upon my return from Japan and my enlistment was cut short. Over the years I have struggled to climb out from accumulating debt. Currently I have obtained the education and credentials to be accepted to MEDEX Northwest, the University of Washington School of Medicine physician assistant program. I am proud of this accomplishment and feel I have fought an uphill battle to get here. My only past scar is a DD-214 that states I am an Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure and contains a re-enlistment code of RE4. Over the years I have attempted to protest this through various means. Local congressmen, the VA, and military officials have been unable to investigate my circumstances. I respectfully request that this injustice be corrected by erasing “Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure” off of my DD-214 as well as changing my re-enlistment code to one more reflective of my service record. I would also like the Separation code changed from JPD to JBM. I will allow my enclosed naval service and medical records to speak for themselves.

Sincerely,

J_ H_ ( Applicant )”

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
One hundred and thirty-seven pages from Applicant’s service/medical records

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     920516 - 921121  ELS
         Active: None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 930107               Date of Discharge: 960223

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 03 01 17
         Inactive: None

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

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 76

 Highest Rate: HM3
Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.95 (4)             Behavior: 4.00 (4)                OTA: 4. 00
Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM, SASM (2), SSDR, NER, GCM

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

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

HONORABLE/ALCOHOL REHABILITATION FAILURE, authority: MILPERSMAN, Article 3630550.
Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

950721:  Medical Evaluation: Recommend Level III treatment.

 951102:  Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency: Substandard performance in the case of alcohol abuse incident #1. Notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.
 951108:  Inpatient. Admission diagnosis: Alcohol dependence.
951206:  Level III discharge disposition: Alcohol dependence in remission.

960131:  Applicant reports to work 1.5 hours late. [Extracted from medical record]

 960131:  Competency for duty evaluation: Applicant found competent to perform duty and released to custody of command (VS-24). Remarks: Applicant’s tardiness to work this AM likely due to ETOH consumption yesterday. As a part of Level III treatment consumption of ETOH violates term of aftercare. Applicant needs to follow-up with DAPA/AA. Comments: “… Despite understanding that he was not to drink again, per aftercare instructions, pt. Went out last PM by himself, and consumed 3 pitchers of beer and a shot of hard ETOH between 2130 and 0300.”

 960215:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge by reason of alcohol abuse rehabilitation failure as evidenced by failure to complete Level III rehabilitation aftercare program as evidenced by a return to alcohol abuse following Level III rehabilitation treatment. The least favorable characterization of service authorized in your case is honorable.

960216:  Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult 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 and to submit a statement.

960221:  Report of Medical History: Note: S/P: Level III treatment for ETOH dependence at ARD Yokosuka. Now has had relapse.
960221:  Report of Medical Assessment: Health Care provider comments: Applicant has alcohol dependence, and has been to Level III treatment. He is being separated for relapse.
960323:  Commanding Officer directed discharge with an honorable characterization by reason of alcohol abuse rehabilitation failure due to his failure to complete Level III rehabilitation aftercare program as evidenced by a return to alcohol abuse following Level III rehabilitation treatment. Commanding Officer’s comments: PO H_ consumed and abused alcohol following Level III treatment while on aftercare. This choice was made despite an in-place support network which included Alcoholics Anonymous, the Command DAPA, the Executive Officer and myself.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was honorably discharged on 19960223 due to alcohol rehabilitation failure (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).

Issues 1-2. The Applicant states his discharge was based on one isolated incident in “38 months.” The Applicant received a retention warning on 19951102 for an alcohol related incident. Subsequently, the Applicant completed Level III rehabilitation. On 19960131, the Applicant reported drinking three pitchers of beer and hard alcohol on 19960130, in violation of his aftercare program. The summary of service clearly documents that alcohol rehabilitation failure was the reason the Applicant was discharged. No other Narrative Reason for Separation could more clearly describe why the Applicant was discharged. 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 consider his discharge proper and equitable. Additionally, the Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment or educational opportunities. Relief denied.

The Applicant states that his discharge was “not subject to JAG representations NJP hearing.” On 19960216, the Applicant waived his right to consult qualified counsel. Further, separation by reason of alcohol rehabilitation failure does not require adjudication by nonjudicial, judicial proceedings or civilian conviction. The record indicates the Applicant violated his aftercare program. The statements and documents provided by the Applicant do not refute the presumption of regularity in this case. The evidence of record does not demonstrate that the Applicant was not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his action. Relief denied.

Normally, to permit relief, a procedural impropriety or inequity must have occurred during the discharge process for the period of enlistment in question. The Board discovered no impropriety after a review of Applicant’s case. 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 Naval service. The NDRB is authorized to consider 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. Examples of documentation that should be provided to the Board include proof of educational pursuits, verifiable employment records, documentation of community service, credible evidence of a substance free lifestyle and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities. As of this time, the Applicant has not provided any relevant post-service documentation for the Board to consider. Relief denied.

Since the NDRB has no jurisdiction over reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Navy, Marine Corps, or any other of the Armed Forces, NDRB is not authorized to change a reenlistment code. Only the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) can make changes to reenlistment codes.

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. 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 9, effective 22 Jul 94 until 2 Oct 96), Article 3630550, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL BY REASON OF ALCOHOL ABUSE REHABILITATION FAILURE

 B. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part II, AUTHORITY/POLICY FOR DEPARTMENTAL DISCHARGE REVIEW.

C. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part V, Para 502, Propriety .

 D. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part V, Para 503, Equity .

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 “ http://Boards.law.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:

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

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00745

    Original file (ND00-00745.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    881129: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with type warranted by service record by reason of alcohol abuse rehabilitation failure. 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).The applicant’s issue states: “I feel the discharge board was wrong on putting alcohol rehabilitation failure down on my discharge. PART IV - INFORMATION FOR...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00129

    Original file (ND00-00129.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I (applicant), am requesting to change my discharge of General Under Honorable Conditions to Honorable Conditions I feel my discharge was inequitable because it was based on an isolated incident. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 980605 with a general (under honorable conditions) due to alcohol rehabilitation failure (A). After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01160

    Original file (ND03-01160.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. The record indicates that at the time of Applicant’s discharge, he had been diagnosed as alcohol dependent and he was participating in an alcohol treatment aftercare program. 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.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00033

    Original file (ND04-00033.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable and the reason for the discharge be changed to “FAILURE TO PROMOTE.” The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review. The captain came to me later and gave me a direct order not to give any information concerning issues that might arise behind the security door of SSES. The summary of service clearly documents that alcohol rehabilitation failure was the reason the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00382

    Original file (ND99-00382.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    950216: BUPERS directed the applicant's discharge by reason of alcohol abuse rehabilitation failure with a characterization of service as type warranted by service record. Determination: discharge proper and equitable; relief not warranted. The applicant had two retention warnings for alcohol related incidents after completion of Level II alcohol treatment.

  • NAVY | DRB | 1997_Navy | ND97-01330

    Original file (ND97-01330.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board recommended that the discharge be a general discharge and that the applicant be sent through Level III treatment. j. prior military service and type of discharge received or outstanding post-service conduct to the extent that such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the performance of the applicant during the period of service which is the subject of the discharge review; On 890810, the applicant was diagnosed as an alcohol abuser and recommended for...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500645

    Original file (ND0500645.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Time Lost During This Period (days): Unauthorized absence: 9 days Confinement: None Age at Entry: 27 Years Contracted: 4 (12 month extension) Education Level: 12 AFQT: NA* Highest Rate: CS3 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks): Performance: NA* Behavior: NA* OTA: NA* Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, (as listed on the DD Form 214): National Defense Service Medal, Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal, Navy...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00821

    Original file (ND01-00821.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00821 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010601, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 990510 with a general (under honorable conditions) due to alcohol rehabilitation failure (A). PART IV - INFORMATION FOR THE APPLICANT If you believe that the decision in your case is unclear, not responsive to the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01175

    Original file (ND99-01175.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    No indication of appeal in the record.901029: Naval Hospital Lemoore, CA: S: 3 rd referral for ETOH - feels he failed level II. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 910426 under honorable conditions (general) due to alcohol abuse - rehabilitation failure (A). At this time, the applicant has not provided any documentation of good character and conduct.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00160

    Original file (ND02-00160.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00160 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 011203, requested that the reason for the discharge be changed to erroneous discharge with a RE-1 or 3 code. In the acknowledgement letter to the applicant, he was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing and that the NDRB does not have the authority to change a reenlistment code. Applicant did not object to...