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

 ex-SR, USNR
Docket No. ND03-00161

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 20021107, 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 20031003.  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 – commission of a serious offense, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

ART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as submitted

1.  “Please look at the reason and conditions of my discharge.  The discharge I received is not a representation of my total service.  Please determine if the RE Code, character of service and discharge is appropriate for my actions.”

Documentation

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

Personal statement
Applicant’s DD Form 214
Letter of recommendation, dated October 29, 2002
Re-affiliation interview letter, dated November 20, 2001
Evaluation Report and Counseling Record, dated July 14, 2002
Certificate of Training, dated June 20, 2002
Certificate of completion, dated June 14, 2002
Certificate of completion, dated June 22, 2002
Letter of reference, undated, not signed
Letter of recommendation, dated May 22, 2000
Letter of reference, undated
Character of reference, dated May 24, 2000

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:  19900629		Date of Discharge:  19911022

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    01  02  17
	Inactive:  00  01  06

Age at Entry:  21			Years Contracted:  6

Education Level:  12 GED		AFQT:  27

Highest Rate:  SR

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  2.10 (2)	Behavior:  1.00 (1)		OTA:  2.20

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NDSM

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  48

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Misconduct – commission of a serious offense, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

910327:	Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (At a recent psychiatric evaluation on 910304 you were diagnosed as extremely depressed with a possible adjustment disorder toward the Navy.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

910604:	Applicant medevaced from USS NIAGARA FALLS because of suicidal ideations.  Psychiatric Evaluation diagnosis: Adjustment disorder with mixed mood – resolved.  2.  Personality disorder, NOS, severe with immature, paranoid, dependent features

910823:	Psychiatric Evaluation diagnosis: Personality disorder.  Applicant should be administratively separated.

910827:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (4 specs): (1) Unauthorized absence 0715, 910624 to 0900, 910812, (2) Fail to go at time prescribed to appointed place of duty on 1244, 910522, to wit: liberty risk muster, (3) Fail to go at time prescribed to appointed place of duty on 2340, 920522, to wit: liberty risk muster, (4) Fail to go at time prescribed to appointed place of duty on 0721, 910523, to wit: liberty risk muster, violation of UCMJ Article 90: Failure to obey order, to wit: to get to work on 0810, 910820, violation of UCMJ, Article 91: Insubordinate conduct, to wit: to clean Second Division officer on 0750, 910820.
	Award: Forfeiture of $376.95 per month for 2 months, confinement on bread and water for 3 days.  No indication of appeal in the record.

910827:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense as evidenced by your violation of UCMJ, article 86 unauthorized absence for a period longer than thirty days and convenience of the government due to a personality disorder as evidenced by several psychiatric evaluations and your violation of a page 13 counseling/warning statement.

910830:	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.

910830:	Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense and convenience of the government due to a personality disorder.

910906:	BUPERS directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

911016:	NJP.  No further information found in service record  [Extracted from Enlisted Performance Record.].
PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19911022 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 that his discharge is not representative of his total service.

The Applicant served one year and two months of a six year contract.  His overall performance and behavior marks were below average.  Additionally, his violations of the UCMJ were serious offenses that could have resulted in a punitive discharge.  The Board determined that the Applicant’s misconduct significantly outweighed the positive contributions he made during his abbreviated service and were representative of his entire service to his country.  The discharge was proper and equitable.  Relief denied.  

Issue from personal statement.  In the Applicant’s personal letter he states that he was young and immature and made several mistakes.  He went UA in the Philippines because he thought he was in love and deeply regrets his poor decision and wants to make amends.

The Board recognizes that the Applicant is remorseful of the poor judgment he exercised during his military career.  However, the Board will not recharacterize a former member’s discharge because he realizes his misconduct while serving his country was a mistake.  The Applicant has not provided any documentation for the Board to consider.  The Board determined that the discharge was proper and equitable.  Relief denied.

The NDRB does not have the authority to change the reenlistment code.  The Applicant will have to address this issue with the Board of Correction of Naval Records (BCNR).

The following is provided for the edification of the Applicant.  Normally, to permit relief, an error or inequity must have occurred during the execution of the discharge for the period of enlistment in question.  No errors or inequities were discovered during the execution of this 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 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 sufficient documentation for the Board to consider.  Therefore, no relief will be granted.

The applicant is reminded that he is 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 personal appearance hearing is recommended but not required.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), effective 15 Aug 91 until 
04 Mar 93, Article 3630600, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL 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.  Under 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), Article 90 (willfully disobeying superior commissioned officer), Article 91 (insubordinate conduct toward warrant, noncommissioned, petty officer), 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