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

 ex-YNSN, USN
Docket No. ND99-00682

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 990427, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable.  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 000201.  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/IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT MARTIAL, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630650.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

1.  At the time of review will bring 5,000 documents and go over 25,000 issues.  And Social Security Disable Report ad file.
Documentation

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

Copy of DD Form 214
Letter from applicant
Applicant’s Self-Help Guide to Discharge Upgrading
Request for Information and Counseling signed by applicant dated 4 May 1999
Letter from applicant
Petition to the 105th Congress
Letter to the BCNR 
Letter to the NCPB dated 23 July 1999
Three pages of applicant’s service record

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   USN			None
	Inactive: USNR 		770401 – 770701	COG
Inactive: USNR(DEP)		891005 - 891113	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  891114		Date of Discharge:  941205

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    04 02 15
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  33			Years Contracted:  4 (12 months extension)

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  53

Highest Rate:  YN3

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.4 (5)	Behavior:  3.6 (5)		OTA:  3.5 (4.0 scale)

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: SSDR (2), NDSM, KLM, ASM

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  300 

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT MARTIAL, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630650.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

910108:	Retention Warning:  Advised of deficiency (indebtedness and failure to adequately support dependents.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning. 

930826:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86:  Unauthorized absence (3 specs), UA from 930729-930730, UA from XOI on 930817, UA from firefighting training on 930823, violation of UCMJ Article 89: disrespect toward a commissioned officer on 930823 disrespected LTjg B____ by failing to salute, violation of UCMJ Article 90: failed to observe a lawful general order on 930823 failed to halt after being ordered to do so, violation of UCMJ Article 91:  Disrespect toward a chief petty officer on 930726 was disrespectful to DCC(SW) F____ , violation of Article 92:  Failed to observe a lawful general order on 930726 by refusing to hold a field day ordered to do so by DCC (SW) F____.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $541 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 30 days.  No indication of appeal in the record.

930920:	Applicant to unauthorized absence.

931019:	Applicant declared a deserter.

940804:	Applicant apprehended by Tucson police.

940811:	Charges preferred to special court-martial [special court-martial] for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) Article 86:
		Unauthorized absence (UA) from 930920 to 940804.

941007:	Medical Examination: Applicant diagnosed with a personality disorder so as to make him unfit from further naval service.  Applicant understands the charges preferred against him and is capable in assisting in the preparation of his defense.  Applicant is fit for duty and should be held responsible for his actions.

941011:	Applicant requested an administrative discharge under other than honorable conditions in lieu of a trail by court-martial.  He consulted with counsel and was fully advised of the implications of his request.  The applicant stated he understood the elements of the offense with which he was charged, and admitted he was guilty of all the charges preferred against him .  Specifically, he admitted to violating UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized Absence.  The applicant stated he was completely satisfied with the counsel he had received. The applicant understood that if discharged under other than honorable conditions, it might deprive him of virtually all veterans' benefits based upon his current enlistment, and that he might expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life in situations wherein the type of service rendered or the character of discharge received therefrom may have a bearing.  

941014:	Applicant’s request for separation in lieu of trial by court-martial approved.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 941205 under other than honorable conditions in lieu of a trial by court-martial (A and B).  The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (C).  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 (D and E).

The Board found the applicant’s flagrant disregard for military discipline appalling.  This was manifest in the applicant’s desertion from the United States Navy for a period of almost 10 months.  In a signed statement, the applicant requested an administrative discharge under other than honorable conditions in lieu of a trail by court-martial.  He consulted with counsel and was fully advised of the implications of his request.  The applicant understood that if discharged under other than honorable conditions, it might deprive him of virtually all veterans' benefits based upon his current enlistment, and that he might expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life in situations wherein the type of service rendered or the character of discharge received therefrom may have a bearing.  The applicant stated he understood the elements of the offenses with which he was charged.  He admitted he was guilty of violating  Article 86: Unauthorized absence in excess of 30 days.  The Board found the applicant’s service record devoid of any mitigating or extenuating factors sufficient to offset the seriousness of the offenses for which the discharge was awarded.  The Board was unanimous in its decision that the applicant was responsible for his actions and must be held accountable.  Relief denied.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 9, effective 
22 Jul 94 until 2 Oct 96, Article 3630650, PROCEDURES FOR PROCESSING ENLISTED PERSONNEL FOR SEPARATION IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT‑MARTIAL. 

B.  A punitive bad conduct discharge may be adjudged for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 86, unauthorized absence for a period more than 30 days upon conviction by a Special or General Court-Martial, in accordance with the Manual for Courts-Martial.

C.  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.  

D.  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.

E.  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 obtain a copy of DoD Directive 1332.28 by writing to:

		DA Military Review Boards Agency
		Management Information and Support Directorate
		Armed Forces Reading Room
		Washington, D.C.  20310-1809

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
		Washington Navy Yard
		720 Kennon St SE Rm 309
		Washington, D.C.  20374-5023