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

ex-SN, USN
Docket No. ND00-01054

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 000915, 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 010301.  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/Separation in lieu of trial by court martial, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630650.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues (verbatim)

1.  I was told that accepting this discharge I would be able to have it upgraded in one year's time on the condition that I not have any problems with the law.

2.  I was very young (17) when I was in boot camp admittedly I was very immature and could not handle the pressure and authority present.  My girlfriend was pregnant and all I wanted was to go home,  The attorney on base suggested this discharge as you don't want to be here and we don't want you here.  I accepted.
I have grown up alot in these 11 years & would like to correct my mistakes of the past.  This discharge has prevented me from obtaining a job with the post office.  All I ask is to be given a second chance and have my discharge upgraded.

Thank you.

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:   None
	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	871128 - 881002	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  881003			Date of Discharge:  890526

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    00  07  24
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  17 Parental Consent		Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  99

Highest Rate:  SN

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  2.80 (1)	Behavior:  2.80 (1)		OTA:  NOB

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  None

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  36 

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/separation in lieu of trial by court martial, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630650.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

881027:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence from 1100, 18Oct88 to 1500, 20Oct88 (2 days/surrendered).
	Award: Forfeiture of $391.05 per month for 1 month.  No indication of appeal in the record.

881027:	Retention Warning:  Advised of deficiency (Unauthorized absence.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning. 

890302:	Applicant to unauthorized absence from 0745, 2Mar89.

890315:	Applicant disenrolled from the Nuclear Power Training Program for demonstrated unreliability, to wit: unauthorized absence.

890316:	Applicant apprehended by Orange County Police Department 1200, 16Mar89.

890405:	Applicant released to military control 1715, 5Apr89 (34 days/surrendered).

890405:	Applicant found fit for confinement.

Separation package missing from service record.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT 
REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 890526 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).

In response to applicant’s issue 1, the NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge (E).  However, 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.  No such error or injustice is evident in the applicant’s service record.  

In response to applicant’s issue 2, the Board found that the applicant's age, education level, and test scores qualified him for enlistment.  While he may feel that his immaturity 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.  Relief denied

The following is provided for the applicant’s edification.  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 15560A), effective 15 Jun 87 until 24 May 89, 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 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