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

 ex-AR, USN
Docket No. ND02-00356

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 020204, 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 020912.  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/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-142 (formerly 3630605).

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as submitted

1.  I am asking my application be considered for review and if possible change in discharge.  I now have an O.T.H. on my record.  I received this discharge for the reason of desertion.  I left from Great Lakes Training Center to take care of my then fiancé, who became homeless.  She also was pregnant with my first child. I took care of things at home and got her settled.  Then I turned myself in to the Lansing, MI station.  If I had known that my fiancé was pregnant I would have not entered the Navy.  I was trying to better my job situation by joining.  Now I find myself in the same place.  My fiancé became my wife and we have two children now.  I want them to have a good life.  The way I plan to give them that life is follow in family tradition and become a police officer.  My discharge is not allowing me to do so at this time.  I regreat leaving the Navy every day when I have to go to my dead end factory job and work for little money.  Please take my request into consideration and I thank you for this opportunity and everyones time in trying to help on the navy's end in my situation.

Documentation

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

Copy of DD Form 214
Michigan Dept of Social Services, Medical Needs, ICO N_ C_, dtd 6/15/99

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

Active:    None
	Inactive:  USNR(DEP)		990511 - 990524	COG
USNR(DEP)	961022 - 970623	ELS (Failed to
                                                                     graduate high school)

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  990525		Date of Discharge:  000107

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    00  07  13 (Doesn't exclude lost time.)
	Inactive:  00  00  00

Age at Entry:  22			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  51

Highest Rate:  AR

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:  110

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-142 (formerly 3630605).  [Note BUPERSINST 1900.8 listed the authority as 3630600 instead of 3630605]

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

990818:	Applicant's parent advised of member's unauthorized absence status.

990930:	Report of Desertion:  Declared deserter 30 Aug 99 having been an unauthorized absentee since 2000, 30 Jul 99 from NAVCRUITRACOM Great Lakes, IL.

991117:	Surrendered at 1300, Navy Recruiting District Michigan.  Returned to RTC Great Lakes, Legal Department on 22 Nov 99.

991216:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86:  on or about 30 Jul 99, without authority, absent himself from his organization and remain so absent until on or about 17 Nov 99.
Award:  Forfeiture of $207 per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duty for 14 days.  No indication of appeal in the record.

991221:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense as evidence by OIC'S NJP OF 16 Dec 99 - absent without leave (30 days or more).

991221:	Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights except the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation 

9912220:	Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense as evidenced by OIC's NJP of 16 Dec 1999 - absent without leave (30 days or more).

000105:	Commander, NTC, Great Lakes directed the applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 000107 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to being absent without leave - 30 days or more (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 NDRB, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge, will change the reason for discharge if such a change is warranted.  The NDRB will not upgrade a discharge solely to improve an Applicant’s employment opportunities.  The Applicant’s summary of service clearly documents the Applicant’s unauthorized absence of 110 days from the Recruit Training Command.
The Applicant’s discharge characterization accurately reflects his service to his country.  The discharge was proper and equitable.  Relief denied.

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, a positive employment record, documentation of community service, certification of non-involvement with civil authorities, 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 to warrant an upgrade to his discharge.  Relief not warranted.

The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of discharge.  The Applicant can provide additional documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments at that time.  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 97 until Present, Article 1910-142  [formerly 3630605]. SEPARATION BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT - COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE.

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