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

 ex-FR, USN
Docket No. ND04-00586

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20040225.  The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to 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 20041001.  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 stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

1.  “To whom it may concern,

I am writing this letter in regard to my discharge from the United States Navy on October 27, 2000.  I was discharged under “other than honorable” conditions and was given a reentry code of Re-4.  It has now been 3 years and several months later since I was discharged and I am once again interested in re-enlisting into the United States Army.  I was told that I could not re-enlist because of the reentry code of Re-4 that I received and would have to request it to be changed.  I did not know that I could have my Re Code changed and that is also another reason why it has taken me so long to request this change.

In regards to my separation from the United States Navy, it was a very unfortunate incident and a very ignorant and stupid mistake on my behalf.  I take full responsibility for what I did.  After Boot Camp, I was sent to Yokosuka, Japan to Serve Aboard the U.S.S. Kitty Hawk.  After serving just a little over a month in Japan, I could not deal with being from home as well as not having friends in Japan.  I felt like an outcast and there were several days where I felt very lonely.  I also did not get along with the people that I worked with, so my work day was not very pleasant at all.  I did try to talk to my commanding officer as well as the Chaplin aboard the ship but it did not help me.  I eventually went AWOL and left the country, coming back to the United States, Orlando Florida, and eventually got caught on a routine traffic stop.  I was gone for just a little over 30 days.  As Mentioned Before, I take full responsibility for what I did.  After being picked up in Orlando Florida, I spent 4 days in the County Jail and was eventually picked up by the Navy and taken to Jacksonville Florida where I awaited Captains Mast in the TPU unit.  While in the TPU unit, I was placed on Liberty and was able to leave the base on the weekends if I did not have a duty day or any other responsibilities.  Since my hometown was Orlando Florida, I went back to Orlando During the weekends.  I do not know if this is included in my service records but to be on the safe side I would like to include this in case it had any affect on my Re-4 discharge.  There was one weekend where I went back to Orlando Florida with my vehicle that I had just recently purchased and on the way back one Sunday evening, I had mechanical problems with my car as well as a tire that was no longer safe to drive all the way to Jacksonville from Orlando.  I returned to Orlando that Sunday evening and although I was due for muster on Monday morning, I felt as long as I had paperwork to show what had happened, I would be alright.  I called the TPU unit and advised them of what had happened and they told me to just come back as quickly as possible and to keep in touch.  I brought my car to the shop and eventually ended up not returning to Jacksonville until Wednesday of that week.  When I returned, the TPU staff took me off of liberty and placed me on non liberty because of the incidents that had happened that week.  Although I submitted paperwork to the staff, they believed that it was false and fraudulent and did not care to see it.  When I went to Captains Mast, I believe, but am not sure, that I was charged with two charges of AWOL and that is why I believe 1 got the Re-4 discharge under “other than honorable”conditions I take full responsibility in my actions for the first AWOL from my Duty Station in Yokosuka Japan but do believe that the second charge was not fair.

Since my discharge in the year 2000, I have maintained steady employment with a few employers such as Walt Disney World, Anheuser Busch, as well as small local companies.  I have attended college Classes at a local community college and completed a 15 week program to become an Emergency Medical Technician.  Currently, I am employed with a company called Convergys doing inbound Computer Technical Support, assisting customers with their DSL Connectivity issues as well as software and Hardware Issues.  I have not been arrested since being discharged from active duty and believe that I am ready and willing to take on the responsibilities of the Armed Services.  I have realized and learned that what I did, running from my problem at the time, was not the answer and am deeply sorry for what I did.  I would like to now Join the United States Army and become a field medic.  I would like to put the skills of Emergency Medical Technician to use with the men and woman of the military as well as pay the debt of time not served according to my original contract.

In closing, I would like to say Thank You for your time in considering my case and look forward to hearing a response.

Sincerely,

S_ M_ (Applicant)”

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)		000209 - 000215	COG
	Active:  None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  000216		Date of Discharge:  001027

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    00  08  12
	Inactive:  00  00  00

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  4 

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  63

Highest Rate:  FR

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:  50

*No Marks made available for review

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:

001012:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: (2 Specifications), Specification 1:  Did on or about 000728, without authority, absent himself from his unit, to wit: USS KITTY HAWK (CV-63) located at Yokosuka, Japan and did remain so absent until on or about 000912, Specification 2:  Did on or about 001005, without authority, absent himself from his organization, to wit:  Transient Personnel Unit, Naval Air Station, Jacksonville, Florida and did remain so absent until on or about 001010.
Award: Forfeiture of $465.00 pay per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days.  No indication of appeal in the record.

001012:	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).

001012:	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 

001012:	Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense as evidenced by CO’s NJP on 001012.

001017:	CNMPC directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20001027 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 and D).

Issues 1:  Normally, to permit relief, an error or injustice must have existed during the period of enlistment in question.  No such error or injustice occurred during the Applicant’s enlistment.  While he may feel that his youth and immaturity were contributing factors, they do not mitigate the Applicant’s disobedience of the orders and directives that regulate good order and discipline in the naval service, demonstrating he was unsuitable for further service.  His service record is marred by award of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for violating UCMJ, Article 86 thus substantiating the misconduct.  Relief denied.

Concerning a change in reenlistment code, the NDRB has no authority to change reenlistment codes or make recommendations to permit reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Naval Service or any other branch of the Armed Forces.  Neither a less than fully honorable discharge nor an unfavorable “RE” code is, in itself, a bar to reenlistment.  A request for waiver is normally done only during the processing of a formal application for enlistment through a recruiter.  

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 civilian life, subsequent to leaving the service.  However, the NDRB is authorized to consider outstanding post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge, 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.  Verifiable proof of any post-service accomplishments must be provided in order for the Applicant to claim post-service conduct and behavior as a reason to upgrade a less than honorable discharge.  Evidence of continuing educational pursuits, a positive employment record, documentation of community service, and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities, are examples of verifiable documents that should be provided to receive consideration for relief, based on post-service conduct.   At this time, the Applicant has not provided sufficient verifiable documentation of good character and conduct to mitigate his misconduct while on active duty.  

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.  The Applicant can provide documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments or any other evidence related to his discharge 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 30, effective 
30 Aug 00 until 24 Jan 01, 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.

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