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

ex-SR, USN
Docket No. ND00-00274

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 991221, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions.  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: UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT MARTIAL, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630650.  

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues (verbatim)

1.  My discharge was inequitable because prior to my second AWOL, I received an evaluation by a military psychologist who judged me to be incompatible to military duty.  The psychologist told me I would be going home, but at my Captain's Mast the next week my captain either did not know or did not care about the results of my evaluation.  Furthermore, he would not allow me to present my perspective on the situation but simply ordered me to repeat boot camp.  I felt trapped and left RTC.

I feel that my discharge amounts to an unjust punishment because this "bad paper" will follow me and continually slap me in the face because committed a foolish mistake, when I was still young.  My record and my reputation are upstanding with the exception of my military service record.

Documentation

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

Copy of DD Form 214

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   None
	Inactive: UNKNOWN

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  940715		Date of Discharge:  960424

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    01  09  10
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  19			Years Contracted:  Unknown

Education Level:  Unknown		AFQT:  Unknown

Highest Rate:  SR

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  NMF		Behavior:  NMF		OTA:  NMF

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NDSM 

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  564 

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 formerly 3630650.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

940803:	Applicant to unauthorized absence 0235, 3Aug94.

940810:	Applicant from unauthorized absence 1245, 10Aug94 (7 days/surrendered).

940815:	Medical officer statement:   Applicant diagnosed with Axis II:  Passive-Aggressive Personality Disorder.  The psychologist recommended separation based on a personality disorder.  Applicant was not considered self-destructive or a of harm to self or others.

940925:	Applicant declared a deserter.

960303:	Applicant apprehended by civil authorities 1210, 3Mar96.  Returned to military control 1245, 3Mar96.

960402:	Charges preferred to special court-martial for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) Article 86: Unauthorized absence (UA) from 0730, 25Aug94 until 1245, 3Mar96.

960416:	Medical Examination:   Applicant evaluated by medical officer and found to be of normal mental status – no documented mental health/psychiatric illness in the past. Psychiatric evaluation not required.  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.

960415:	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 offense(s) with which he was charged, and admitted he was guilty of all the charges preferred against him.  Specifically, he admitted to violating UCMJ, Article: Unauthorized absence from 0730, 25Aug94 until 1245, 3Mar96 (557 days/ apprehended).  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. 

960419:	The commanding officer, exercising GCMCA, approved the request for an administrative separation in lieu of a trial by court-martial, and directed applicant’s discharge.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 960424 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 that the applicant went UA from RTC for 7 days and was diagnosed by a psychologist to have a Personality Disorder.  The psychologist recommended separation based on the personality disorder, but this is a recommendation only, and the Commanding Officer has final authority over this decision.  The applicant then became a deserter when he left RTC 10 days later.  He was apprehended 557 days later, at which time charges were preferred to special court-martial.

In response to the applicant’s issue 1, while he may feel that his youth was a factor that contributed to his action, the record clearly reflects his willful disregard for the requirements of military discipline and demonstrated that he was unfit for further service.  The record is devoid of evidence that the applicant was not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions.  No relief will be granted based on this issue. 

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 [e.g., 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 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