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

ex-AR, USNR
Docket No. ND03-00250 

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 20021202, 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 20031017.  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 3630600.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

1.  “My discharge should be upgraded to honorable due to the fact that I was discharged improperly and inequitable in SECNAVI7NST 5420.174c., End. (1), Chap. 9.3, as it pertains to family and personal problems. I am my mother’s only child when my stepfather (now my Mothers ex-husbands) physically abused my mother while she eight months pregnant, which resulted in stress that affected my ability to serve satisfactorily.

2.  I request that the board include provisions of SECNAVINST 5420.1 74c., End (1), Chap 9.2, as it pertains to post-service conduct, in assessing the merits of my application.”

Documentation

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

Evidence of a Temporary Restraining Order
Letter from wife, dated August 12, 2002
Associate in Applied Science Degree, dated May 14, 1998
General Manufacturing Certification, dated May 13, 1997
Certificate of Membership from church, dated November 23, 1997
Birth Certificate of daughter, dated July 29, 2000
Birth Certificate of son, dated July 18, 1998
Letter of recommendation, dated October 5, 2001
Letter of recommendation, dated September 10, 2001
Letter of recommendation, dated February 3, 1999
Proof of Charity Contributions in 1999 and 2000
Proof of Charity Contributions in 2000
Proof of Charity Contributions in 2000
Proof of Charity Contributions in 2000
Proof of Charity Contributions in 2001
Applicant’ s DD Form 214 (Member 1)

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:  19940223			Date of Discharge:  19951218

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    01  05  00	Does not exclude lost time
	Inactive:  00  04  25

Age at Entry:  17 Parental Consent		Years Contracted:  8

Education Level:  12				AFQT:  48

Highest Rate:  AA

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  1.00 (1)			Behavior:  1.00 (1)		OTA:  2.00

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NDSM

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  78

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

951031:	Summary Court-Martial.
	Charge I: violation of the UCMJ, Article 86:
	Specification: Unauthorized absence from 0615, 950616 to 1150, 950904 (78 days/surrendered).
	Charge II: violation of the UCMJ, Article 87:
	Specification: Missing ship’s movement on 950707.
	Finding: to Charge I and II and the specifications thereunder, guilty.
	Sentence: Forfeiture of $569.00, confinement for 30 days, reduced to AR.
	CA action 951102:  Sentence approved and ordered executed.

951031:	Applicant to confinement.

951103:	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 absent without leave (30 days or more).

951103:	Applicant advised of 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.

951104:	Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to absent without leave (30 days or more).

951117:	BUPERS directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct.

951125:	Applicant from confinement.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19951218 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to absent without leave (30 days or more) (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 that his discharge was improper and inequitable as SECNAVINST 5420.174c, Encl (1), Chap 9 pertains to family and personal problems.  He was affected by the stress of his stepfather physically abusing his mother when she was pregnant.

The applicant was on unauthorized absence for 78 consecutive days (a serious offense punishable at court martial with a punitive discharge).  There is no evidence that he attempted to use his chain of command to assist him with his personal problems.  The discharge was proper and equitable.  Relief denied.

Issue 2.  The Applicant requests the Board to consider his post-service conduct in assessing the merits of his application for discharge upgrade.

The Board considered the post-service documentation provided and recognizes the significant monetary contributions the Applicant made to his church as well as the character reference letters, and degree certificate he earned.  While these documents demonstrate that the Applicant has made significant strides in establishing his credibility as a productive member of society these accomplishments do not mitigate the seriousness of his misconduct and therefore do not warrant recharacterization of his discharge.  The discharge was proper and equitable.  Relief denied.

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), Change 9, effective 
22 Jul 94 until 02 Oct 96, Article 3630600, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT. 

B.  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) if adjudged at a Special or General Court-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