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

ex-SN, USN
Docket No. ND00-01087

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 000922, 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 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/IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT MARTIAL, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-106 (formerly 3630650).

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

1.  I would like to join the peace core or work for correctional institution or other mental health center but because of my discharge I cannot do these things over the years I have developed my own program for people with drug & alcohol problems & other mental health problems and would like to help government institutions and I wish I could re enter the armed forces to serve especially in places like central Europe because of my experience with the polish people culture & language.  Thank you for attending these issues.

2.  My average conduct and efficiency ratings/behavior and proficiency marks were good, as I always maintained military bearing under the most trying circumstances during my period of enlistment, I was very proud to serve in the U.S. Navy and had no problem with my mates or superiors, I just wish that I could have finish my service time.

My record shows that I was generally a good service member a none drugs or alcohol user a member who serve with principle and discipline, this is why I receive my certification as a lifestyle trainer, consultant helping people with stress management, smoking cessation, diet control and promoting American culture abroad.

My ability to serve at that time in the U.S. Navy was impaired by my youth and immaturity, personal problems and some language problems which I was able to overcome over the years, other than my OTH discharge, no other negative record exist in my life history that's the other reason why I would like my discharge to be upgraded, that I may continue to be a positive role model to others.

Documentation

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

Copy of DD Form 214 (3 copies)
Copy of DD Form 149
Character reference dated February 29, 1996 (2 copies)
Letter of recommendation dated May 28, 1997 (2 copies)
Letter from Jones College dated April 25, 2000
Copy of applicant's grades from Jones College dated April 21, 2000
Two newspaper articles (2 copies)
Copy of degree in Bachelor of Religious Arts dated March 9, 2000
Copy of criminal record check dated December 28, 1999
Letter to applicant from Canadian Embassy dated March 17, 1992
Letter to applicant from Polish Union Secretary dated March 13, 1996 (2 copies)
Three letters written in Polish
Copy of Perfect Attendance Certificate dated January 17, 2000 through March 18, 2000
Copy of certificate of achievement for completion of lifestyle specialist: stress management, undated (2 copies)
Copy of certificate of accreditation for completion of lifestyle trainer, undated (2 copies)
Copy of certificate of achievement for completion of lifestyle specialist: principles of smoking cessation: breathe free, undated (2 copies)
Copy of applicant's resume
Twenty-nine pages from applicant's service record
Copy of photo identification card
Copy of polish written document
Copy of separation/retirement papers dated July 28, 1999

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   None
	Inactive: None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  771025		Date of Discharge:  990909

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    21  10  15 (Doesn't exclude lost time)
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  23			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  69

Highest Rate:  SN

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.47 (3)	Behavior:  3.40 (3)		OTA:  3.51

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  None 

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  7130

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 1910-106 (formerly 3630650).

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

781109:	NJP for violation of UCMJ.  [Extracted from CO's letter dated October 9, 1979.  No further information found in service record.]

791002:	Applicant request to be discharged from U.S. Navy in accordance with BUPERSMAN 3810420.

791003:	Applicant informed he is being considered for an administrative discharge by reason of convenience of the government at your own request on the grounds of being an alien.

791003:	Applicant signed statement stating he has read and understands BUPERSMAN 3810420.4.

791009:	Commanding Officer's recommends applicant's request for discharge be granted and the applicant be separated with an honorable discharge.

791207:	Chief of Naval Personnel approved discharge.

791210:	Applicant to unauthorized absence 0730, 10Dec79.

800110:	Applicant declared a deserter.

990628:	Applicant from unauthorized absence 1130, 28Jun99 (7130 days/surrendered).

990909:	DD Form 214: Discharged: UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/ IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT MARTIAL, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-106.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 990909 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 applicant’s first issue states:  “I would like to join the peace core or work for correctional institution or other mental health center but because of my discharge I cannot do these things over the years I have developed my own program for people with drug & alcohol problems & other mental health problems and would like to help government institutions and I wish I could re enter the armed forces to serve especially in places like central Europe because of my experience with the polish people culture & language.  Thank you for attending these issues.”  To change the discharge for the sole purpose of employment opportunities is inappropriate.  The Board found no impropriety or inequity in the discharge as issued.  The record clearly shows the applicant was UA for over 7000 days.  Relief is denied.

The applicant’s second issue states:  “My average conduct and efficiency ratings/behavior and proficiency marks were good, as I always maintained military bearing under the most trying circumstances during my period of enlistment, I was very proud to serve in the U.S. Navy and had no problem with my mates or superiors, I just wish that I could have finish my service time.”  While the applicant states his marks were “good”, the Board found the negative aspects of his service outweigh any positive contributions.  Relief is denied.

The applicant’s third issue states:  “My record shows that I was generally a good service member a none drugs or alcohol user a member who serve with principle and discipline, this is why I receive my certification as a lifestyle trainer, consultant helping people with stress management, smoking cessation, diet control and promoting American culture abroad.”  The Board found the applicant’s misconduct clearly outweighed any positive contributions he may have made.  Relief is denied.

The applicant’s fourth issue states:  “My ability to serve at that time in the U.S. Navy was impaired by my youth and immaturity, personal problems and some language problems which I was able to overcome over the years, other than my OTH discharge, no other negative record exist in my life history that's the other reason why I would like my discharge to be upgraded, that I may continue to be a positive role model to others.”  Since the applicant was UA for over 19 years, the board finds this issue without merit.  Furthermore, at the time of enlistment the applicant was fully qualified to serve.  Relief is denied.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 18, effective 
12 Dec 1997 until 10 July 2000, Article 1910-106 (formerly 3630650), 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