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

   ex-OS3, USN
Docket No. ND05-00304

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20041210.  The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable.  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 20050713.  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/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 am writing in hopes of changing my current US Navy discharge from an Other Than Honorable to either a General or Honorable.  I am asking, with all due respect, to allow me to explain why I feel deserving of this change.   I served a faithful three years and nine months in the US Navy, leaving only briefly for two months to handle personal problems at home.  And for these reasons, I did leave my command, the USS Harry S. Truman CVN-75 unauthorized.  I was having a very difficult time at that point in my life and it was simply things that could not be handled away from home.  I was suffering from depression as my medical records from my ship will show.  Shortly after my arrival home, I had to deal with the loss of my father, which caused me to stay home longer that I had originally intended. I understand that leaving my command was not the best decision that I could’ve made, but I found it to be absolutely necessary.  My records from the Navy will indicate that I was not a discipline problem.  I was preparing to take my test for second class Petty Officer, having received numerous awards, letters of recommendation, and was awarded a medal of good conduct.  I have every intention of finishing my enlistment.
    The most important step in my life at the current time is to clear this disappointing discharge from my record, having the opportunity to hold my head high when asked about my time served in the United States military.  Please allow me the chance to stand proud even though my enlistment was 3 months short.  Please take what I have said into consideration when making a decision.  I appreciate your time and attention.”

Thank You,
[signed]
J_ W_ (Applicant)"

Documentation

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

Applicant’s DD Form 214

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

Inactive: USNR (DEP)	990303 - 990725	COG
	Active:   USN			None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  990726		Date of Discharge:  030318

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    03  05  21  (Excludes lost time)
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  4 

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  56

Highest Rate:  OS3

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.50 (2)		Behavior:  2.50 (2)		OTA:  3.00

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  Armed Forces Expitionary Medal, Sea Service Deployment Ribbon, Good Conduct Medal, National Defense Service Medal

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  65

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:

000717:	UA from USS HARRY S. TRUMAN (CVN 75).

000718:	Surrendered on board USS HARRY S. TRUMAN (CVN 75) (1day).

021204:	UA from USS HARRY S. TRUMAN (CVN 75) since 0630 this date.

030207:	Surrendered to military authorities at TRANSITPERSU GREAT LAKES IL at 1215 this date.  Retained on board for disciplinary action/disposition.

030207:	Charges preferred at TRANSITPERSU GREAT LAKES IL for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) Article 86 Unauthorized absence.  Specification:  did, at or about 0630 on 021204, without authority, absent herself from her organization, to wit: USS HARRY S. TRUMAN (CVN 75) located at Norfolk, VA and did remain so absent until at or about 1215 on 030207. 

030220:	Applicant requested an administrative discharge under other than honorable conditions in lieu of a trial by court-martial.  She waived her right to consult with counsel and stated the request was made voluntarily and without duress.  The Applicant stated she understood the elements of the offense(s) with which she was charged, and admitted she was guilty of all the charges preferred against her.  Specifically, she admitted to violation of UCMJ Article 86 Unauthorized absence; specifically, did, at or about 0630 on 021204, without authority, absent herself from her organization, to wit: USS HARRY S. TRUMAN (CVN 75) located at Norfolk, VA and did remain so absent until at or about 1215 on 030207.  The Applicant understood that if discharged under other than honorable conditions, it might deprive her of virtually all veterans' benefits based upon her current enlistment, and that she might expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life in situations wherein the type of service rendered or the character of discharge received therefrom may have a bearing. 

030220:	SPCMCA (Commanding Officer, TRANSITPERSU GREAT LAKES IL) approved the request for an administrative separation in lieu of a trial by court-martial, and directed the Applicant’s discharge.  CO, TPU states that the Applicant had been interviewed and did not possess the potential for further Naval service.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20030318 under other than honorable conditions in lieu of a trial by court-martial (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 contends that she was having a very difficult time, including dealing with the loss of her father, at that point in her life and implies that this mitigates her misconduct.  The NDRB sympathizes with the Applicant's personal losses and recognizes that serving in the U.S. Navy is challenging.  Our country is fortunate to have men and women willing to endure the hardships and sacrifices required in order to serve their country.  The hardships and challenges of military life, however, do not excuse a Sailor from accountability for his or her actions.  There is no evidence in the record to suggest that the Applicant was not responsible for her misconduct or that she should not be held accountable for her actions.  While she may feel that her family situation was the underlying cause of her misconduct, the record clearly reflects the Applicant's willful misconduct and demonstrated she was unfit for further service.  Relief on this basis is denied.

The Applicant states that she suffered from depression at the time of her service and implies that this prohibited proper judgment and control, leading to her misconduct.  The Board thoroughly reviewed the Applicant's service and medical records and found that she was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder on 20020509 by the psychologist aboard the USS HARRY S. TRUMAN (CVN 75).  The Applicant is advised that the presence of a diagnosed adjustment disorder does not mitigate nor excuse a service member's misconduct.  Further, an adjustment disorder does not imply incompetence nor bar a service member from continuing his or her service.  There is no evidence in the record to suggest that the Applicant was not responsible, or should not be held accountable, for that misconduct.  Relief on this basis is therefore denied.

The Applicant contends that her service warrants an honorable characterization as she received numerous awards, including a good conduct medal.  When the service of a Sailor has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service as honorable.  A discharge with an other than honorable characterization of service is warranted when negative aspects of a member's conduct or performance of duty significantly outweigh the positive aspects of the member's military record.  The Board recognizes the positive aspects of the Applicant's service record but also recognizes her voluntary admission, in order to avoid trial by court-martial, of violation of UCMJ Article 86 in that she was absent from her command, without authorization, for 64 days.  The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflects her willful failure to meet the requirements of her contract with the U.S. Navy and falls far short of that required for an upgrade of his characterization of service.  Relief on this basis is 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 the 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 any documentation for the Board to consider.

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 her 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), 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 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part II, AUTHORITY/POLICY FOR DEPARTMENTAL DISCHARGE REVIEW.

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

E.  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