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

 ex-EOCN, USN
Docket No. ND00-00387

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 000203, 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 000831.  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/Misconduct – commission of a serious offense, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

1. I served 9 years and 11 months in the United States Navy.  I believe it was the best choice of my life.  The Navy gave me a career, taught me how to be a professional and how to be a success in life.  During the time of my active duty, I received numerous letters of appreciation, ribbons, medals, 2 Good Conduct Medals, Sailor of the Quarter and other recognitions and awards.  I worked hard, went and served anywhere I was sent and did all that was asked and required of me.
March of 1992 I was deployed to Guam.  While in Guam, my wife attempted suicide in Gulfport, MS. and was admitted to Keesler AFB Hospital.  I went home on emergency leave at the request of the doctor in charge of her case.  After she was discharged from the hospital, I returned to Guam to assume my duties.  My wife called me on the telephone April 03, 1992, while I was still in Guam, and informed me that she wanted a divorce.  I was devastated.  I went to the Chaplain, company chief, company commander and then to my battalion commander requesting to return to Gulfport, MS. to attempt to save my marriage.  I was denied my request.  Instead of sending me back to Gulfport, I was relieved of my duties and spent the last month of my deployment in the barracks.  On May 05, 1992 I returned to Gulfport, MS. at the conclusion of my deployment tour of duty with Naval Mobile Construction Battalion One.  I went on 30 days leave.  While on leave and in transit to my next duty station, I attempted to convince my wife not to divorce me and to reconcile our differences.  She expressed that she wouldn't consider reconciliation as long as I was in the Navy.  In a futile attempt to restore and repair my relationship with my wife, I allowed my judgement and good sense to become impaired.  I became an Unauthorized Absentee at the end of my leave and transit time.  Looking back at it now, it was the worst decision I have ever made in my life.  Not only did I loose the respect of my country and family, but also of myself.
I was arrested by the Long Beach, MS.  Police Department and taken into custody.  I was then escorted to Groton, CT.  Naval Base where I was incarcerated in the brig to await court martial.  Following my court martial, I requested to be discharged from the Navy.  That was the second worst mistake of my life.  September 1992, I went on terminal leave.  November 1992 I received my Other Than Honorable Discharge.  My bad judgement cause me my Naval career and I failed to save my marriage.
Since being discharged from the Navy, I was employed by Heinz Pet Products as a forklift operator.  A skill I acquired while in the Navy.  After one year of employment, I was promoted to Dock Boss on the second shift.  After the second year, the plant was closed and I was laid off.  Currently, I work for Markham Products, Inc.  I have been employed with this company for 3 years.  In the first year, I was promoted to Vice-President of the company.  This is the position I currently hold.  I have also attended and graduated from Barber College and am now a licensed Barber in the state of Oklahoma.  I am also on the Board of Directors for the Barber College from which I graduated.  I haven't had so much as speeding ticket since my discharge from the Navy and have become a productive citizen of my community.
In closing, I know I made a series of grave mistakes during a very traumatic period in my life.  I supported the United States Navy and proudly served my country for over 9 years.  I held a very impressive service record up and until the time that I went U/A.
Giving the Naval Personnel Board the above issues to consider, I am respectfully and hopefully requesting that my Other Than Honorable Discharge be upgraded to an Honorable Discharge.  Thank you for the opportunity to present this request.  Sincerely,

Documentation

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

None

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   USN			900316 - 920331	HON
		   USNR		840827 - 900315	HON
	Inactive: USNR		831221 - 840826	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  920401		Date of Discharge:  921125

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    00  07  25
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  26			Years Contracted:  2

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  27

Highest Rate:  EO2

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.40 (2)	Behavior:  3.40 (2)		OTA:  3.40

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  ASM, AFEM, SSDR, NUC, MUC, BER, GCM

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  52 

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Misconduct – commission of a serious offense, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

920702:	Applicant declared a deserter.

920924:	Special Court Martial
	Charge I: violation of the UCMJ, Article 86:
	Specification: Unauthorized absence from 0001, 23Jun92 to 14Aug92 (52 days).
	Findings:  to Charge I and specification thereunder, guilty.
	Sentence:  Confinement for 45 days, forfeiture of $300 per month for 4 months, reduction to EOCN.
	CA 920924: Sentence approved and ordered executed.

920924:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

920924:  	Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights except the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation.

921005:	Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

921030:	CNP recommended to Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower and Reserve Affairs that applicant be discharged under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

921105:	Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) approved recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

921109:	BUPERS directed the applicant's discharge under other than 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 921125 under other than honorable conditions 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).

The NDRB considered the applicant’s letter including the circumstanced surrounding the discharge and the applicants post service conduct.  The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the re characterization of a discharge.  The applicant must be aware that there is no law or regulation which provides that an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time, or good conduct in the civilian life subsequent to leaving the service.  Normally, to permit relief, an error or injustice must have been found to have existed during the period of enlistment in question.  Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent that such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review, may be considered by the NDRB.  

The applicant is reminded that he is eligible for a personal appearance hearing provided the application is received within 15 years from the date of discharge.  Representation at personal appearance hearing is highly recommended.

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.  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.  

C.  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.

D.  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