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

 ex-ADAR, USN
Docket No. ND00-01005

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 000829, 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 designate a representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 010215.  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: BAD CONDUCT/Convicted by special court martial, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3640420.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

1.  I request that the Board review the type of discharge received.  I had accepted an admin board discharge prior to going UA. Art. 86, General Under Honorable Conditions.  Based on my service to the Navy and country prior to this I am requesting that this be considered.

Documentation

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

Copy of DD Form 214
Applicant's ltr to the Board dtd June 2, 2000
Character Reference ltr from F_ H_, Machine Shop Supervisor, undtd 
Character Reference ltr from W_ G. S_, USAF Tsgt. Ret. dtd Jun 11, 2000
Criminal History Record Check dtd Sep 26, 2000
Certificate of Training (TIMCO), (F-27 Familiarization) dtd November 2, 1990
Certificate of Training (TIMCO), (DC-8 Familiarization) dtd November 12, 1990
Certificate of Training (TIMCO), (F-727 Familiarization) dtd October 26, 1990
Letter of Outstanding Job Performance from B_ K_, Project Manager, TIMCO, dtd June 3, 1993
Congratulations letter for job well done from G_ P_, Production Foreman, TIMCO, dtd April 20, 1992
Letter of Commendation from Lockhead Aeromod Center, Inc. dtd January 25, 1990
Letter of Outstanding Performance from C_ H. B_, TIMCO, dtd June 23, 1992
Letter of Appreciation from M_ B, TIMCO, undtd
Letter of Thank You from R. A. H_, Sr. VP, TIMCO, dtd June 26, 1992
U.S. Dept. of Transportation (FAA) Mechanic License issued 2 March 1999

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   USN			810504 - 851210	HON
	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	800907 - 810503	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  851211		Date of Discharge:  900309

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    04  02  29 (Doesn't exclude UA and confinement time.)
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  22			Years Contracted:  6

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  46

Highest Rate:  AD2

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.9 (3)	Behavior:  3.9 (3)		OTA:  3.93

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  SSDR(2), MUC, Battle "E" Ribbon

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  91 

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

BAD CONDUCT/Convicted by special court  martial, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3640420.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

851211:	Reenlisted for a term of 6 years at FITRON 21, San Diego, CA and entitled to Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB).

880907:	Unauthorized absence from NAS Miramar.

880926:	Surrendered onboard (19 days).

881013:	Special Court Martial.
Charge I:  violation of the UCMJ, Article 86 (3 specs)
Specification 1:  unauthorized absence without proper authority absent himself from his appointed place of duty on or about 0700, 4AUG88 until 9030, 4 AUG88.
Specification 2:  on or about 1300, 24AUG88 failed to go from his appointed place of duty.
Specification 3:  on or about 7SEP88 absent himself from his unit until 26SEP88.
Charge II:  violation of the UCMJ, Article 112a:  wrongfully use Methamphetamine on or about 21 JUN88.
Charge III:  violation of the UCMJ, Article 134:  breach of correctional custody on or about 7SEP88 break restriction.
	Findings:  to Charge I and all specifications, thereunder, and Charge II and Charge III, guilty. 
Sentence:  Forfeiture of $200 per month for 4 months, reduction to E-4, confinement for 60 days.
CA 881031:  Sentence approved and ordered executed but the execution of that part of sentence adjudging confinement for 60 days will be suspended for a period of 6 months from date of trial.

890110:	Unauthorized absence from NAS Miramar without authority.

890111:	Surrendered on board NAS Miramar.  (1 days)

890322:	Unauthorized absence from NAS Miramar without authority.

890421:	Declared deserter.

890603:	Apprehended by civil authorities in Spartanburg, SC at 0830.  Returned to military jurisdiction to NAVABSCOLLU Jacksonville, FL, and returned to NAS Miramar at 0010, 89JUN08.  (71 days)

890603:	Pre-trial confinement.

890707:	Special Court Martial
	Charge I:  violation of the UCMJ, Article 86:  on or about 22 March 1989 absent himself until apprehended on or about 2 June 1989.
	Findings:  to Charge I, guilty.
	Sentence:  Confinement for 75 days, forfeiture of $466 per month for 3 months, reduction to E-1, Bad Conduct discharge.
	CA 890825:  Sentence approved and ordered executed, except for bad conduct discharge and the execution of that part of the sentence adjudging confinement in excess of 45 days is suspended for 6 months.
	SA:  see SSPCMO.

890707:	Joined Navy Brig, Naval Station, San Diego, for confinement.

890713:	From confinement; to appellate leave.

891130:	NMCCMR:  The findings of guilty and sentence, as approved on review, are affirmed.

900309:	SSPCMO:  Article 71c, UCMJ, having been complied with, Bad Conduct discharge ordered executed.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 900309 with bad conduct due to convicted by special court martial (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).

Relevant and material facts stated in a court-martial specification are presumed by the NDRB to be established facts.  With respect to a discharge adjudged by a court-martial case, the action of the NDRB is restricted to upgrades based on clemency.  The applicant's case was considered under the pertinent standards of equity to determine if any factors in this particular case merited clemency.  The NDRB found the applicant’s service record devoid of any mitigating or extenuating factors sufficient to offset the seriousness of the offenses for which the discharge was awarded.  Although the applicant provided post service documentation, the Board did not find clemency is warranted.  Relief is denied.

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

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560A), Change 9, effective 14 Dec 89 until 14 Aug 91, Article 3640420, DISCHARGE OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL ADJUDGED BY SENTENCE OF COURT‑MARTIAL

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