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

ex-AMSAN, USN
Docket No. ND00-00232

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 991208, 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 000803.  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:  GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630605.

The NDRB did note an administrative error on the original DD Form 214.  Block 25, Separation Authority, should read:  "NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630605" vice Article 3630600, Block 26 Separation Code should read:  "HKQ: vice "GKA".  Block 28, Narrative Reason for Separation should read:  “MISCONDUCT” vice “PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT”.  The original DD Form 214 should be corrected or reissued as appropriate. 

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues (verbatim)

1.  My discharge was inequitable because it was based on two incidents during a rough period of my life due to family problems.  My record show that I was a very good and motivated sailor and would very much like to join the navy again.

Documentation

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

Enlisted Performance Evaluation Report
Evaluation Report & Counseling Record (2pgs)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   USN			None
	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	930330 - 930629	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  930630		Date of Discharge:  970923

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    04  02  24
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  19			Years Contracted:  4 

Education Level:  10			AFQT:  53

Highest Rate:  AMSAN

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.80 (2)	Behavior:  3.80 (2)		OTA:  3.80

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NAM, GCA, NAVY"E"RIBBON, MUC, AFEM, SSDR, NDSM 

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  65 

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630605.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

970730:	Report of Declaration of Deserter (NAVPERS 1600-3).  Applicant declared a deserter on 970727 having been an unauthorized absentee since 0700, 970627 from HSL FOUR TWO UIC 55145.

970805:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 85: (2 Specifications), Desertions, Spec 1: UA from 970522-970624, Spec 2: UA from 970627-970729.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $575.55 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to E-3.  No indication of appeal in the record.

970901:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge general under honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

970902:  	Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights.

970901:	Commanding officer recommended discharge general under honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 970923 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (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).

In the applicant’s issue 1, 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.  In fact, the Board found that the applicant’s age, education, test scores, prior service, promotions and awards were sufficient to qualify him for enlistment.  The Board will not grant relief on the basis of this issue.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 14, effective 
03 Oct 96 until 971212, Article 3630605, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT – COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE.

B.  In Appendix 12 of the Manual for Courts-Martial, a punitive discharge is authorized for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 86, for unauthorized absence for a period in excess of 30 days and if adjudged at a Special or General Court 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 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