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

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

  ex-SR, USN
Docket No. ND05-00280

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20041210.  The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable.  The Applicant requests a personal appearance discharge review before a traveling panel closest to Cleveland, OH 44103.  The Applicant did not designate a representative on the DD Form 293.  In the acknowledgement letter, the Applicant was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) does not travel; all hearings are held in Washington DC, at the Washington Navy Yard.  The Applicant failed to respond by the deadline date to a letter requiring the Applicant to notify the Naval Discharge Review Board of intention to be present for the requested personal appearance hearing.  Therefore, a documentary review was conducted, and the Applicant is not eligible for further review by this Board.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20060113.  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 by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application: 

“In submitting this writing I would like to say my life is very different because of my discharge.  When I was young I thought that the service could be the thing for me and it was. But as soon as I got in I went to the Gulf War I was young and scared.   So I went awall for 2 weeks but I turned myself in but in the working world they look at my record and say has not dependable and I am. I can’t provide for my 4 kids with this under other than honorable on my record.  I would like to apologize for my wrongdoing all is asking for is a second chance.  Thank you.”

Documentation

Only the service record was reviewed.  The Applicant did not provide additional documentation for the Board’s consideration.

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive:  USNR (DEP)	19891102 - 19900102	COG
	Active:    None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  19900103		Date of Discharge:  19910705

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    01  03  13  (Excludes lost time)
	Inactive:  None

Time Lost During This Period (days):

	Unauthorized absence:  80 days
	Confinement:		  None

Age at Entry:  18

Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12				AFQT:  27

Highest Rate:  SR

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  2.8 (1)			Behavior:  2.8 (1)		OTA:  3.40

Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, (as listed on the DD Form 214):  National Defense Service Medal

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Misconduct - commission of a serious offense, authority:  MILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.  Discharged in absentia.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events: 

900419:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86:  Unauthorized absence, to wit: 14 hours.
Violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Dereliction of duty.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $200 per month for 1 month, oral reprimand.  No indication of appeal in the record.

900529:	Applicant to unauthorized absence at 0650 on 900529.

900529:	Applicant missed ship’s movement.

900601:	Applicant from unauthorized absence at 0905 on 900601.  Applicant surrendered at NAB Little Creek, VA.

900726:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: UA from 29 May 1990 to 1 Jun 1990.
	Award:  Restriction and extra duty for 45 days.  No indication of appeal in the record.

901210:	Applicant to unauthorized absence at 0500 on 901210.

910108:	Applicant declared a deserter due to manifestation of Applicant’s intent.

910207:	Applicant from unauthorized absence at 2230 on 910207.  Applicant surrendered at NAVSTA Philadelphia, PA.

910302:	Applicant returned to USS CARON at 1540 on 910302 on TAO’s from NAVSTA Philadelphia, PA.

910307:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence for 59 days.
Violation of UCMJ, Article 87: Missing ship’s movement.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $376 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days.  No indication of appeal in the record.

910323:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with the least favorable characterization of service as under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense.

910330:	Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult with counsel, elected to waive all rights.

910406:	Commanding Officer, USS CARON (DD 970), recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense.  Commanding Officer’s comments:  “Seaman C_ (Applicant) has no propensity for further naval service.  His unauthorized absences demonstrate a lack of concern for the rules and regulations of the Navy.  His presence onboard is detrimental to crew morale and good order and discipline.  I recommend an Other Than Honorable discharge.”

910513:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 113: Sleeping while on watch.
Violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $100 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 30 days.  No indication of appeal in the record.

910515:	BUPERS directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense.

910617:	Applicant to unauthorized absence at 0700 on 910617.

910705: 	Applicant discharged in absentia. 

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged, in absentia, on 19910705 by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A and B) with a service characterization of under other than honorable conditions.  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).  

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 four nonjudicial punishment proceedings for violations of Articles 86, 87, 92 and 113 of the UCMJ.  The Applicant’s violations of Articles 87, 92 and 113 are considered serious offenses.  Additionally, the Applicant’s violation of Article 86 for an unauthorized absence of 59 days is considered a serious offense.  The Applicant went to unauthorized absence a fourth time after being notified of the recommendation for his administrative separation.  The Applicant was eventually discharged in absentia.  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 contends that he was “young and scared.”  While he may feel that his immaturity and fear was the underlying cause of his misconduct, the record clearly reflects his willful misconduct and demonstrated he was unfit for further service.  The evidence of record did not show that the Applicant was either not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions.  Relief denied.

The following is provided for the edification of the Applicant.  Normally, to permit relief, a procedural impropriety or inequity must have occurred during the discharge process for the period of enlistment in question.  The Board discovered no impropriety after a review of Applicant’s case.  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 Naval service.  The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the Applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review.  Examples of documentation that should be provided to the Board include proof of educational pursuits, verifiable employment records, documentation of community service and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities.  As of this time, the Applicant has not provided sufficient post-service documentation for the Board to consider.  Additionally, the Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment or educational opportunities.  Relief denied.

The following is provided for edification for the Applicant.  The Applicant has exhausted his opportunities for review by the NDRB.  The Applicant may, however, petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR), 2 Navy Annex, Washington, DC 20370-5100, concerning a change in the characterization of naval service, if he desires further review of his case.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560A), Change 8, effective 
21 Aug 89 until 14 Aug 91, Article 3630600, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT – COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE.

B.  The Manual for Courts-Martial authorizes the award of a punitive discharge if adjudged as part of the sentence upon conviction by a special or general court-martial for violation of the UCMJ, Article 86, unauthorized absence for more than 30 days, Article 87, missing movement, Article 92, failure to obey a lawful order or Article 113, misbehavior of a sentinel.

C.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part V, Para 502, Propriety.

D.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part V, Para 503, Equity.

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 “http://Boards.law.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:

		Secretary of the Navy Council of Review Boards
		Attn:  Naval Discharge Review Board
		720 Kennon Street SE Rm 309
		Washington Navy Yard DC  20374-5023