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

    ex-GMG3, USN
Docket No. ND03-00139

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 20021101, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable or 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 20030926.  After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the Applicant’s service was discovered by the NDRB.  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.  Prior to my UCMJ Violation my Navy career was going well.  I had just finished shore duty & was transferred to the USS Whirlwind for duty.  While serving aboard this vessel my wife at the time and I were going through a divorce and I was not able to deal with the situation and made matters worse by going UA.  My personal life became overwhelming.  Prior to this time I served my county well and wish I could take this situation back.  Respectfully request a review of my discharge thank you for your time.

Documentation

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

None

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	19811203 – 19820317	COG
	Active:   USN 			19820318 – 19870408	HON
	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	19910305 – 19910402	COG
	Active:   USN			19910403 – 19981105	HON

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  19981106		Date of Discharge:  20000403

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    01  04  28
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  35			Years Contracted:  3

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  52

Highest Rate:  GMG2

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.50 (2)	Behavior:  2.00 (2)		OTA:  3.07

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  N&MCAM, JMU, NER, GCM, NEM, NDSM, SASM (2), SSDR (5), Letter of Appreciation

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  162

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-142 (formerly 3630605).

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

981106:	Reenlisted for a term of three years at the Navy Cargo Handling & Port Group, Williamsburg, VA.

990923:	Applicant declared a deserter.

000222:	Applicant returned this date.

000225:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence from 0700, 990913 to 1830, 000222 (162 days/surrendered).
	Award: Forfeiture of $778 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to GMG3.  No indication of appeal in the record.

000403:	DD Form 214: Applicant discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-142.

Discharge package missing from service record.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 2000403 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (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, D, and E).

Issue 1.  The Applicant states his personal life became overwhelming.  He and his wife were divorcing and he was unable to deal with the situation.

The Applicant provided no evidence that he attempted to use his chain of command to assist in resolving his personal problems but chose to go on unauthorized absence for 162 consecutive days.  Unfortunately, the Applicant’s personal problems do not mitigate his misconduct.  The discharge was proper and equitable.  Relief denied.

The following is provided for the edification of the Applicant.  Normally, to permit relief, an error or inequity must have occurred during the period of enlistment in question.  No errors or inequities were discovered in the execution of the Applicant’s 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.  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.  Examples include of documentation to forward to the Board include proof of educational pursuits, verifiable employment record(s), documentation of community service, certification of non-involvement with civil authorities, and credible evidence of a substance free lifestyle (if appropriate).  At this time, the applicant has not provided any documentation for the Board to consider.  Therefore, no relief will be granted.

He is reminded that he 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.  Representation at a personal appearance hearing is recommended but not required.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 28, effective 
30 Mar 00 until 29 Aug 00, 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.

E.  In Appendix 12 of the Manual for Courts-Martial, a punitive discharge is authorized for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 86 (unauthorized absence for a period in excess of 30 days), if adjudged at a Special or General Court Martial

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