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

  ex-SR, USNR
Docket No. ND03-00141

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 20021104, 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 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/Separation in lieu of trial by court martial, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630650.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as submitted

1.  My undesirable discharge was improper because I was denied “A” school while I had more qualifications that were required prior to enlistment.  At the time I was a college student and I withdrawn from my studies just to be in the Navy.  Also I had a diploma in the field of electronic.  I scored very high in the A.S.V.E.R.B Test except for the English part of the examination.  I felt like I was unfairly treated.  Therefore I think the discharge I received should be upgraded.

2.  The undesirable discharge was inequitable because I only stay for a period of four days in PSD RTC San Diego, CA.  Since my separation from the Navy I have been trying so hard to obtain a decent job, which always unsuccessful even though I am qualify for the position – fourteen years have gone by and I have never been in Trouble with law.  Therefore, I think the discharge should be upgraded.

Documentation

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

Applicant’s DD Form 214
Student copy of transcript, dated June 12, 2003
Character reference from State Senator, dated July 2, 2003
Character reference, dated June 25, 2003
Job reference, dated June 19, 2003

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: None
	Active:   None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  19880314		Date of Discharge:  19890512

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    01  00  09
	Inactive:  00  01  19

Age at Entry:  26			Years Contracted:  8

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  26

Highest Rate:  SR

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:  330

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/separation in lieu of trial by court martial, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630650.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

880606:	Drug and Alcohol Abuse Report: Marijuana abuse.  Service directed urinalysis 880509.  Commanding Officer recommended retention and Level I treatment.  Comments: Mbr has potential for naval service.   Positive entry level urinalysis for THC.  Issued page 13.  Will undergo mandatory urinalysis once a month during pre-accession trng IAW OPNAVINST 5350.4A.
890420:	Charges preferred to special court-martial for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) Article 86: Unauthorized absence (UA) from 880510 until 890411 (330 day/surrendered).

890424:	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 0600, 880510 until 1115, 890411 (331 days/surrendered).  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.
 
890504:	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 19890512 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 his discharge was improper because he was denied an “A” school and he had more qualifications than were required (college student, diploma from technical school).

The Applicant’s qualifications prior to enlistment and being denied “A” school have no bearing on the reason the Applicant was discharged.  The Applicant was discharged for being on unauthorized absence for 330 consecutive days.  The Applicant admitted guilt to all charges made against him, he had council, and elected to be discharged with an Other Than Honorable characterization in lieu of trial by court martial.  The discharge was proper and equitable.  Relief denied.

Issue 2.  The Applicant states he is unable to get a decent job even though he has the qualifications, and that it has been 14 years since his discharge.

The Applicant signed a statement saying he was aware of the adverse effects of an Other Than Honorable discharge.  Additionally, normally, to permit relief, an error or inequity must have existed 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 of documentation to forward to the Board include 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 sufficient 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 15560A), effective 15 Jun 87 until 24 May 89, Article 3630650, PROCEDURES FOR PROCESSING ENLISTED PERSONNEL FOR 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	

.