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

ex-RMSA, USNR
Docket No. ND01-00253

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 001228, 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 010629.  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.  On June 02, 1998, 1 enlisted into the United States Navy at the age of seventeen.  I was discharged on February 25, 2000, due to misconduct.  The nature of my misconduct was that I had gone UA.  NTC Great Lakes had released me from there after I had completed training for RM "A" school, and I went home for 30 days of leave.  It was during this time that I was led astray from the lessons in honor, courage, and commitment that I had worked so hard to learn upon joining the Navy.  My family had disapproved of me joining the Navy and once I got home they started in on I was not going to make it, and how I should never had joined.  Normally I don't listen to that type of  discouragement; however, at the time I was young and vulnerable and scared of going to Iceland.  Shortly after my return home one of Aunts died.  It seemed as though that gave everyone around me an opportunity to inform me that if I went to Iceland that I was never going to be around when something happened to anyone in the family, It seemed as though fate proved their point when about a week later my mother was hospitalized for heart failure.  My sister's rose to the occasion let me know that I was cause of my mother's ill health, her constant worrying and the stress over me had brought this on her.  They then let me know that when I did leave to go to Iceland it would probably kill her.  Common sense told me that wouldn't happen but continuous belittlement of me from everyone caused me to doubt the reasons and myself why I had joined the Navy, and what it meant to me.  The night before I was due to leave my cousin's girlfriend shot herself in the head.  As I was kneeling over her trying to stop the bleeding my aunt made a comment of how I was going to deal with this type of event happening all the time, and would I be able to handle it. After all of those events had transpired I lost sight of my goals and did not go to Iceland.  The normal procedure that takes place when a person has gone UA is a call is placed to try and locate that person.  That call was never made to me.  I firmly believe that if that call were made I would never have been discharged, disciplined yes, but not discharged.  I know that I could have and should have made the call to any military official and explained the situation to him/her, but my state of mind at that time was that of a scared and confused eighteen year old who was not ready to own up to the consequences of my actions. In September of 1999, I turned myself in on my own free will to the recruiting office in Plainview TX, to SHI _.  He had been my recruiter when I first joined the Navy.  It was through him that the process of my actions was to be dealt with.  The process began which was long and confusing.  I was to report the naval reserve center in Lubbock TX.  I reported there and was told that a ticket had been obtained for me to fly to Iceland, which is where I was UA from.  When I was due to check-in for the flight I was informed that the ticket had been canceled and I was to report back to the reserve center.  Upon reporting I was then informed that I wouldn't be going to Iceland because they never received orders for me to report there.  It seemed as though no one knew what to do with me.  Every day I was to report to Lubbock, however Lubbock is approximately 100 miles from where I was living and I could not make that drive every day. I was told that I would be kept posted and they would call me as soon as they knew something.  That was around the middle of September, in November I still had not heard anything from anyone, so once again I contacted SHI M_.  He once again made all of the necessary calls and finally results began to show. Towards the end of November S_ K_ who works in the personal department at NAS Corpus Christi, contacted me.  It seemed as though each day it was changed to where I was going to report.  One day it was back to Great Lakes, then the next it was Iceland, and the following it was Corpus, etc...On December 01, 1999 I was flown to Corpus Christi, TX to be discharged and disciplined.  During my stay at NAS Corpus, I worked in the Personal Property Shipping Office.  My discharge date was February 25, 2000.  It has now been almost nine months that I have been out of the Navy.  During this time I have come to regret my actions and realize that I lost what was the most important part of my life.  Not a day goes by that I am not reminded of every lesson and the morals I learned.  I am here now humbly asking for reconsideration of my discharge, to have it favorably changed so that I may once again be a part of the United States Navy.  Thank you,

Documentation

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

Copy of DD Form 214
Letter to BCNR
Copy of Request for Reference (DD Form 370) dated December 4, 2000
Copy of Request for Reference (DD Form 370) dated August 30, 2000
Character reference, undated
Copy of Request for Reference (DD Form 370) dated August 18, 2000
Character reference dated August 18, 2000

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:  971008			Date of Discharge:  000225

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    01  08  24
	Inactive:  00  07  24

Age at Entry:  17 Parental Consent		Years Contracted:  8

Education Level:  12				AFQT:  79

Highest Rate:  RMSN

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  NMF*			Behavior:  NMF*		OTA:  NMF*

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  None 

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  152

*No marks found in service record.

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:

980602:	Applicant ordered to active duty.

000124:	Charges preferred to special court-martial for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), Article 86: Unauthorized absence (UA) from 2230, 2Apr99 until 1400, 2Sep99 (152 days/surrendered).

000208:	Applicant requested an administrative discharge under other than honorable conditions in lieu of a trial by court-martial.  She consulted with counsel and was fully advised of the implications of her request.  The applicant stated she understood the elements of the offense(s) with which she was charged, and admitted she was guilty of all the charges preferred against her.  Specifically, she admitted to violating UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence from 2230, 2Apr99 until 1400, 2Sep99 (152 days/surrendered).  The applicant stated she was completely satisfied with the counsel she had received. The applicant understood that if discharged under other than honorable conditions, it might deprive her of virtually all veterans' benefits based upon her current enlistment, and that she might expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life in situations wherein the type of service rendered or the character of discharge received there from may have a bearing.  

000218:	The commanding officer, exercising GCMCA, approved the request for an administrative separation in lieu of a trial by court-martial, and directed applicant’s discharge.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 000225 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).

Issue 1.  The applicant states her personal problems were the cause of her actions and that she realizes that she lost what was the most important part of her life.  She wants to be part of the U.S. Navy once again.  Normally, to permit relief, an error or injustice must have existed during the period of enlistment in question.  No such error or injustice occurred during the applicant’s enlistment.  Additionally, 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 civilian life, subsequent to leaving the service.  However, the NDRB is authorized to consider outstanding post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge, 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.  Verifiable proof of any post-service accomplishments must be provided in order for the applicant to claim post-service conduct and behavior as a reason to upgrade a less than Honorable discharge.  Evidence of continuing educational pursuits, an employment record, documentation of community service, certification of non-involvement with civil authorities and proof of his not using drugs, are examples of verifiable documents that should have been provided to receive consideration for clemency, based on post-service conduct.  The applicant did not provide any of these documents.  She is reminded that she remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of his discharge.  The applicant can provide additional documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments at that time.  Legal representation at a personal appearance hearing is highly recommended but not required.

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 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 “afls10.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