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

 ex-ETSN, USN
Docket No. ND00-00323

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 000112, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to Honorable.  The applicant requested a personal appearance hearing discharge review.  The applicant did not list any representative on the DD Form 293.  In the acknowledgement letter to the applicant, the applicant was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 000817.  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 4 to 1 that the character of the discharge shall not change.  The discharge shall remain: UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL)/MISCONDUCT – Commission of a serious offense, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

1.  My parents were in the process of getting a divorce and there was considerable emotional stress on me.  My mother requested my presence back home.  Therefore, I requested an emergency leave.  My leading petty officer and divisional chief turned down my request.  (The vessel I was stationed on was in the process of re-fit and getting ready for deployment in a couple of week.)  I left my post to settle family matters and hoped to make it back before deployment.  I ran out of money while I was back home and missed my ships' deployment by the time I got back.  I believe this could have been prevented with help and understanding from my unit, as I planned to make a six year enlistment of the serve.  I had a notarized letter from my mothers' attorney stating the divorce and her pleads to have me back home.  If the request had been granted this misconduct could have been avoided.  I would appreciate any help you can give me to remove this from my records by upgrading my discharge from under honorable conditions to honorable.  This type of discharge has prevented me from finding menial employment and causes me to be turned down from security clearance employment and being bonded.

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: USNR (DEP)	900511 - 900704	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  900705		Date of Discharge:  930202

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    02  06  29
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  17			Years Contracted:  4 (24 month extension)

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  59

Highest Rate:  ET3

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.60 (2)	Behavior:  3.70 (2)		OTA:  3.70

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NDSM, SSBNDPP

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  17 

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

UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL)/MISCONDUCT – Commission of a serious offense, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

Only a partial discharge package was available.

921203:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence from 0715, 1Nov92 to 0605, 19Nov92 (17 days/surrendered), violation of UCMJ Article 87: Missing ship's movement on 5Nov92.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $482 per month for 1 month, restriction for 45 days, reduction to ETSN.  No indication of appeal in the record.

921215:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under Other Than Honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the Commission of a serious offense.

921215:  	Applicant advised of his rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ, Article 27B, elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge Board.

930127:	LT M_ statement of dissenting administrative board member. This board member made following statement:" ...based on the absence of evidence to indicate a pattern of misconduct or poor performance he does not deserve a General Discharge."

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 930202 under Honorable conditions (General) for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (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).

In the applicant’s issue 1, the Board determined this issue is without merit.  The applicant states, his parents were divorcing, his leave request was denied, he then went home to settle family matters.  He also states, if his leave request had been granted the misconduct could have been avoided.  It was the applicant’s Commanding Officer’s opinion that to accomplish his mission, he needed the applicant present, performing his job, during the period in question.  It was the applicant’s duty to obey the orders of his Commanding Officer, and he did not.  Missing ship’s movement is a serious violation of the UCMJ and the applicant was held accountable for his actions.  The discharge was proper and equitable.  Relief denied.

The following is provided for the benefit of the applicant.  There is no law or regulation that provides for the upgrade of an unfavorable discharge based solely on the passage of time or good conduct, subsequent to leaving military service.  The NDRB reviews the propriety (did the Navy follow its own rules in processing the applicant for discharge) and equity (did the applicant receive a discharge characterization in keeping with Navy guidance or was the characterization typical of other service members being separated for the same reason) of each applicant’s discharge to determine if proper procedures were followed.  This applicant’s discharge was proper and equitable.  Additionally, the NDRB is authorized to upgrade a discharge based on post-service factors (what has the applicant done since discharge to become a contributing member of his/her community and to society in general).  Those factors include but are not limited to the following:  Evidence of continuing educational pursuits (transcripts, diploma, degree or vocational-technical certificates), a verifiable employment history (letter of recommendation from employer), documentation of community service (letter from activity/community group), certificate of non-involvement with civil authorities (police records check) and proof of not using drugs (detoxification certificate).  The applicant did not provide any documentation to demonstrate good character and conduct.  The applicant is encouraged to establish a reputation of good character and document his accomplishments.  Documentation to support any claim of good character is a must to receive any consideration based on post-service achievements.  The applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, to discuss his post-service accomplishments, provided an application is received by the NDRB within fifteen years from the date of his discharge.  Legal representation at the hearing is advisable.
Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), effective 15 Aug 91 until 
04 Mar 93, Article 3630600, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT – COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE.

B.  Under the Manual for Courts-Martial, a punitive discharge is authorized for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 87, for missing ship’s movement, 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