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

  ex-AKAA, USN
Docket No. ND03-00012

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 20021001, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable.  The Applicant requested a personal appearance discharge review before a traveling panel closest to Phila, PA.  The Applicant did not list any representative on the DD Form 293.  In the acknowledgement letter, the Applicant was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) does not travel; all hearings are held in the Washington DC area.  The NDRB also advised that the board first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing.  Subsequent to the application, the Applicant obtained representation by the American Legion.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20030828.  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, as submitted

1.  (Equity Issue) This former member asserts that his youth and extreme immaturity played a major factor in his ability to not be able to make adult decisions and respond in a proper manner and this should be taken into account when adjudicating his case. 

2.  (Equity Issue) This former member further requests that the Board include provisions of SECNAVINST 5420.174C, enclosure (1), Chapter 9, as it pertains to post-service conduct, in assessing the merits of this application.

Documentation

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

Letter from the Applicant, dated August 8, 2002
Letter of recommendation, dated August 8, 2002
Applicant’s DD Form 214 (Member 1 and 4)
Master promissory note, dated May 9, 2002
Enrollment agreement, dated May 9, 2002
Letter from Applicant’s mother, dated October 30, 2002
Five pages from Applicant’s service record

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   None
	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	960229 - 960729	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  960730		Date of Discharge:  010323

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    04  07  24	Does not exclude lost time
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  19			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  53

Highest Rate:  AKAA

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:  1359

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:

970625:	Applicant declared a deserter.

010308:	Charges preferred to special court-martial for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) Article 86: Unauthorized absence from 0700, 970603 until 0108, 010228 (1359 days/apprehended).

010309:	Applicant requested an administrative discharge under other than honorable conditions in lieu of a trial by court-martial.  He consulted with counsel and was fully advised of the implications of his request.  The Applicant stated he understood the elements of the offense(s) with which he was charged, and admitted he was guilty of all the charges preferred against him.  Specifically, he admitted to violating UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence from 0700, 970603 until 0108. 010228.  The Applicant stated he was completely satisfied with the counsel he had received. The Applicant understood that if discharged under other than honorable conditions, it might deprive him of virtually all veterans' benefits based upon his current enlistment, and that he 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.

010323:	DD Form 214:  Applicant discharged under other than honorable conditions in lieu of a trial by court-martial.

Partial separation package missing from service record.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20010323 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 the Applicant’s issue 1, the Board determined this issue has no merit.  The Applicant states his youth and immaturity played a major factor in his ability to not be able to make adult decisions and respond in a proper manner.  Youth and immaturity do not justify the Applicant’s unauthorized absence for 1359 days.  The Applicant was a deserter and displayed no signs of remorse for his unauthorized absence such as returning to military service.  The Applicant was apprehended and punished according to Navy regulations.  The discharge was proper and equitable.  Relief denied.

In the Applicant’s issue 2, the Board determined this issue has not merit.  The Applicant claims his post-service accomplishments warrant an upgrade to his discharge.  The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge.  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 of propriety or equity must have occurred during the period of enlistment in question.  No such errors occurred in the execution of this discharge.  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, can be considered.  In determining whether a case merits a change based on post-service conduct, the NDRB considers the length of time since discharge, the applicant's record of community service, employment, conduct, educational achievements, and family relationships.  In reviewing the Applicant’s post service documents, the Board recognizes the efforts he has begun to make in attempting to recoup his reputation that has been sullied by his misconduct in the Navy.  However, based on the severity of the Applicant’s misconduct, the post-service documentation provided is insufficient to warrant an upgrade to his discharge.  Therefore, relief will not be granted at this time.

The Applicant is encouraged to continue his pursuits of re-establishing his reputation as a credible citizen.  He is reminded that he remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing provided the application is received within 15 years from the date of discharge.  Representation at a personal appearance hearing is highly recommended.  Relief denied. 

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 29, effective 
11 Jul 2000 until 21 Aug 2002, 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 “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