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

 ex-SA, USN
Docket No. ND01-01162

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 010905, 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 19 April 2002.  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 (verbatim)

1.  I fill that my discharge should be upgraded on the grounds that I received this discharge under unfair and unheard condictions.  I reciveved an other than honorable discharge because I lefted my duty station.  My reasons were not heard or considered.  I left because I was ill and recieved no medical attention.  I used my chain of command an still recieved nothing.  I left my ship the USSS Abraham Lincolon stationed in Everett WA and returned home Chicago for medical attition and was soon determined that I had a very serious case of Lupus and a blood disorder.  Having no money to return to Wa. I turned myself in to Great Lake Navel Command where I recieved an OTH.  My case or reasons for leaving were never heard and the decision to give me an OTH was made.

Documentation

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

Copy of DD Form 214 (2 copies)
Letter from a doctor dated October 25, 2000 (2 copies)
Letter from applicant dated September 27, 2001
Five pictures
Statement from doctor dated September 26, 2001

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   None
	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	991229 - 000109	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  000110		Date of Discharge:  001214

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    00  11  05
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  22			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  32

Highest Rate:  SA

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  NMA			Behavior:  NMA		OTA:  NMA

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  None

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  69

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:

001026:	Charges preferred to special court-martial for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) Article 86: Unauthorized absence (UA) from 0700, 17Aug00 to 0845, 25Oct00 (69 days/surrendered).

001026:	Applicant requested an administrative discharge under other than honorable conditions in lieu of a trial by court-martial.  She waived her right to consult with counsel.  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 0700, 17Aug00 to 0845, 25Oct00 (69 days/S).  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 therefrom may have a bearing.  

001027:	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 001214 under other than honorable conditions in lieu of a trial by 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).

Issue 1.  The applicant states her discharge should be upgraded on the grounds that she received her discharge under "unfair and unheard conditions."  Normally, to permit relief, an error or injustice must have occurred during the period of enlistment in question.  No such error or injustice occurred.  The Applicant was afforded all of her rights in accordance with all instructions and regulations.  She requested to be separated with an other than honorable discharge in lieu of trial by court martial.  The Applicant waived her right to consult with a member of the Judge Advocate General's Corps and stated she understood the nature of the charged offenses along with the consequences of waiving her right to trial by court-martial.  All procedural rules were followed.  The discharge was proper and equitable.  Relief denied.

The following is provided for the benefit of the applicant.  There is no law or regulation, which provides 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 re-characterization of a discharge, to the extent 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 her not using drugs, are examples of verifiable documents that should have been provided to receive consideration for relief based on post-service conduct.  

The Applicant did not provide sufficient documentation in extenuation and mitigation of her offenses to warrant a change to her discharge.  Her application also lacked sufficient post-service conduct documentation.  She is reminded she remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing provided an application for the hearing is received at the NDRB within 15 years from the date of her 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.  Relief is hereby denied

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)
A.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 29, effective 
11 Jul 2000 until Present, Article 1910-106 (formerly 3630650), SEPARATION IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY 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 “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