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

 ex-AAA, USN
Docket No. ND99-00937

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 990702, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions and the re-entry code changed from RE-4 to RE-1 or RE-2.  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 000323.  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 1910-106 (formerly 3630650).

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

1.	TO THE NAVAL REVIEW BOARD

Dear Sir or Madam:
	
	My name is M---S. C---.  I enlisted in the United States Navy in June 20, 1995 at 12:35 P.M.  I am writing you this letter in regards to my discharge from the United States Navy on October 5, 1998 at 1:35 P.M.  I am going to explain in this letter why this other than honorable discharge took place.

	Starting from the beginning of 1998 my father was dying of cancer.  When he passed away in January 1998, my mother (C--- D----) was having problems because she knew this was the only means of living for her and my brother  (J--- C---) who was in high school.  My mother was unable to work due to the doctor diagnosing her with a heart condition, so without thinking, I left the Navy because I didn’t think they could help me with these problems.  All I could do is think about my mother and brother trying to survive on their own (without income) in today’s society.  This is when I contacted our State Representatives Office and they led me to believe that I could apply for a Hardship Discharge.  At that time, I didn’t understand about the Hardship Discharge and therefore went on thinking this was going to take place.  After this, I continued on, trying to help my mother anyway possible.  Then, when I found out it wasn’t going to take place, or what was going on with the Hardship, I turned myself (not apprehended) into the Norfolk Naval Base on or about April 6, 1998.  This is where the Navy put me in Transit Personnel Unit (TPU).  After this took place, I had talked to my mother a few times to see how she and my brother were doing.  She stated that things weren’t well at home.  I stayed in TPU until on or about April 13, 1998, when I thought my mother needed me.  I remained UA until on or about July 16, 1998 when I turned myself back into TPU at the Norfolk Naval Base.  After this, I remained at Norfolk Naval Base in TPU until they found out what they were going to do about the situation that occurred.  After being discharged from the United States Navy on October 5, 1998, I went to stay with my mother and tried to make a civilian life for myself and my family.  After being out of the Navy for a short time, I realized how much I missed it.  
	About a month later, I found out that my mother had lead me to believe that all this time she couldn’t survive in life without me, when, in fact, her conditions weren’t as bad as she led me to believe.  My mother was able to work and is now currently working to support her and my brother who is now 18 years old and working also.

	I know they say you have to learn from your mistakes, but I don’t feel it is right to have to learn from someone else’s mistakes.  I have a wife now and I want to give her the best life there is to give.  She is supporting 100% on whatever career move I feel is necessary.  My wife feels that I need to be back in the United States Navy because it is all I want and hope for in life.  I know that with one more chance in the United States Navy, I can serve my country to the best of my ability and not make the same mistakes in life twice.  I am not asking you to overlook my mistakes, all I am asking is that you give me a second chance to make the UNITED STATES NAVY my career for life.

	Enclose are copies of a Charge Sheet from Defense Council, Discharge Papers, Application for Review of Discharge and a Letter of Appreciation that I received while I was in TPU.

Sincerely,
{Applicant Signed]

Documentation

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

Copy of DD Form 214
Letter of Appreciation from Commanding Officer, TPU, Norfolk, dated 11 Sep 98
Letter from Applicant’s Defense Counsel dated 9 Sep 98
DD Form 458, Charge Sheet against applicant dated 980831
Request for Administrative Discharge in Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial dated 9 Sep 98
Letter from Applicant’s wife dated 991030
Letter from Reverend H___ G____ dated 991014
Letter from W___ W___ dated 991015
Letter from CPL M___ L____ dated 990915

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   USN			None
	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	950428 - 950619	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  950610			Date of Discharge:  981005

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    02 10 07
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  19			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  NMF

Highest Rate:  ABEAA

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.73 (3)	Behavior:  3.8 (3)		OTA:  3.77 (on a 4.0 scale)

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NDSM, MUC

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  158

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 1910-106 (formerly 3630650).

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

980202:	Applicant to unauthorized absence.

980406:	Applicant surrendered.

980413:	Applicant to unauthorized absence.
980716:	Applicant surrendered.

980831:	Charges preferred to special court-martial for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) Article 86:
	Unauthorized absence (UA) from 980202 to 980406 and 980413 to 980716 (158 days).

980909:	Applicant requested an administrative discharge under other than honorable conditions in lieu of a trial 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 offenses 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 from 2 Feb 1998 to 6 April 1998 and from 13 April 1998 to 16 July 1998.  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 [Applicant’s discharge packet missing from service record; all information obtained from applicant]

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 981005 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 nothing in the records nor did the applicant submit any supporting documentation that showed that his personal problems were of sufficient magnitude that they could not be resolved through standard military channels or by the applicant’s chain of command.  The Board did feel sympathy for the applicant’s plight, but felt that the applicant must be held accountable for his actions.  Relief denied.

Concerning a change in reenlistment code, the NDRB has no authority to change reenlistment codes or make recommendations to permit reentry into the naval service or any other of the Armed Forces.  The NDRB has no jurisdiction over reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Navy or Marine Corps.  Reenlistment policy of the naval service is promulgated by the Bureau of Naval Personnel, Pers-282, 5720 Integrity Drive, Millington, TN 38055, and the Commandant, United States Marine Corps, Code MMPE‑5, Washington, DC  20380-3001.  Neither a less than fully honorable discharge nor an unfavorable "RE" code is, in itself, a bar to reenlistment.  A request for a waiver is normally done only during the processing of a formal application for enlistment through a recruiter.  Relief, is therefore, denied.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 18, effective 
12 Dec 1997 until Present, Article 1910-106 (formerly 3630650), 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