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

 ex-MM2, USN
Docket No. ND04-00505

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20040209.  The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable or general/under honorable conditions.  The Applicant requests 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 20041022.  After a thorough review of the available 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/IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT MARTIAL, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-106 (formerly 3630650).

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

1.  “I FEEL AS IF THOUGH MY DISCHARGE SHOULD BE CHANGED TO EITHER HONORABLE OR GENERAL UNDER HONORABLE.  I WENT U/A FROM MY SHIP (USS HARTFORD SSN768) IN JULY 02.  I WILLINGLY RETURNED MYSELF IN MARCH 03.  I WAS THREATENED BY THE CHIEF OF THE BOAT (MASTER CHIEF B_ J_) AS TO WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO ME IF I WERE TO COME BACK THEREFORE SCARING ME INTO NOT COMING BACK.   MY SERVICE RECORD UP TILL THIS TIME WAS OUTSTANDING.  I RECEIVED JUNIOR SAILOR OF THE QUARTER WHILE ONBOARD HARTFORD AND REENLISTED FOR 6 YEARS JUST MONTHS PRIOR TO THIS INCIDENT.  I KNOW AND FULLY UNDERSTAND THAT NO ONE BUT MYSELF IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MY ACTIONS.  I PLACE FULL BLAME ON MYSELF.  I KNOW THAT THERE WERE OTHER CHANNELS AVAILABLE TO ME AT THE TIME.  NO ONE ON THE SHIP KNEW HOW TO HANDLE WHAT I WAS GOING THOUGH.  MORE INFORMATION ON THE REASON FOR LEAVING CAN BE SENT IF NEEDED.  I THINK YOU FOR YOUR REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION OF MY DISCHARGE UPGRADE.”

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):

	Active:   USN			980723 - 020328	HON
	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	980422 - 980722	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  020329		Date of Discharge:  030501

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    01  01  02	Does not exclude lost time
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  6

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  49

Highest Rate:  MM2

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  NMF*	Behavior:  NMF		OTA:  NMF

*No marks found in service record

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NDSM, SSRD

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  234

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:

020329:	Applicant reenlisted for six years on-board USS HARTFORD.
030501:	Discharged, DD214 issued reads: UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT MARTIAL, reflecting unauthorized absence totaling 234 days.

Applicant’s discharge package not in service record

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20030501 under other than honorable conditions in lieu of a trial by court-martial (A and B).  After a thorough review of the available records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (C and D).  The presumption of regularity of governmental affairs was applied by the Board in this case in the absence of a complete discharge package (E).    

Issue 1.  The Board presumed regularity of governmental affairs.  Therefore, the Board presumed the Applicant requested discharge to escape trial by court-martial, had the elements of the offense for which he was charged fully explained by counsel, that he was guilty of the offense and that he had a complete understanding of the negative consequences of his actions.  The Applicant provided no documentation to support his claims and the evidence of record does not demonstrate that the Applicant was not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions. Relief denied.

An Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge is warranted when significant negative aspects of a member's conduct or performance of duty outweigh the positive aspects of the member's military record.  The Applicant’s service was marred by an unauthorized absence in excess of  230 days.  The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflects his willful failure to meet the requirements of his contract with the U.S. Navy and falls far short of that required for an upgrade of his characterization of service.  Relief is not warranted.

The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of discharge.  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), re-issued October 2002, effective 22 Aug 2002 until Present, 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 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.  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.  

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