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

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

   ex-SA, USN
Docket No. ND05-00588

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20050218.  The Applicant requests the Discharge 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 designate a representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20050831.  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 and reason for discharge shall not change.  The discharge shall remain Under Other Than Honorable Conditions in lieu of a trial by court-martial.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

“I ask that the discharge be changed I know I made a mistake and time has gone by I wish to rejoin the military again and ask that the board honor my request if not for me to rejoin then for me the have a normal life.”

Remarks:  “I am just asking the board to change my discharge I do wish to rejoin the military, but if this is not possible then to have a decent discharge to show employers that I was attempting to do something with my life.  I understand I make a mistake and I apologize and I think about every day how I made a big mistake I ask the board to reconsider this please.  Thank you”

Documentation

Only the service and medical records were 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)	19970910 - 19970929		COG
	Active:    None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  19970930		Date of Discharge:  19980618

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    00  08  19  (Does not exclude lost time.)
	Inactive:  None

Time Lost During This Period (days):

	Unauthorized absence:  65 days
	Confinement:		  None

Age at Entry:  19

Years Contracted:  4 (24 month extension)

Education Level:  12				AFQT:  76

Highest Rate:  SA

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  NA*				Behavior:  NA*		OTA:  NA*

Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, (as listed on the DD Form 214):  None

* Not Available

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT MARTIAL, authority:  MILPERSMAN, Article 1910-106 (formerly 3630650).

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events: 

980216:	Applicant to unauthorized absence at 2315 on 980216.

980312:	Applicant from unauthorized absence at 0741 on 980312 (23 days/surrendered).

UNDATED:	Retention Warning:  Advised of deficiency (Violation UCMJ Article 86 (Unauthorized absence.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.  [Undated and unsigned.  Issued by Service School Command, Great Lakes, IL]

980401:	Applicant to unauthorized absence at 0600 on 980401.

980504:	Applicant declared a deserter.

980513:	Applicant apprehended by civil authorities at San Antonio, TX at 1540 on 980513.

980513:	Applicant returned to military control at NACIC Great Lakes, IL at 1545, 980513 (42 days/apprehended).

980515:	Applicant transferred to TPU Great Lakes, IL at 1134 on 980515 for disciplinary action/disposition.

980618:	DD Form 214: Applicant discharged under other than honorable conditions in lieu of trial by court-martial, authority: MILPERSMAN, Article 1910-106.

Service Record did not contain the Administrative Discharge package.
Service Record was missing elements of the Summary of Service.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19980618 in lieu of a trial by court-martial (A and B) with a service characterization of under other than honorable conditions.  After a thorough review of the available records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (C and D).  The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (E).

In the absence of a complete discharge package, the Board presumed that the Applicant requested an administrative discharge under other than honorable conditions in lieu of a trial by court-martial and that he consulted with counsel and was fully advised of the implications of his request.  The Board further presumed the Applicant understood that if discharged under other than honorable conditions, it might deprive him of virtually all veterans' benefits based upon his current enlistment, and that he 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.  The Board presumed the Applicant stated he understood the elements of the offenses with which he was charged and admitted he was guilty of violating UCMJ Article 86, unauthorized absence for a period more than 30 days.  

When the service of a member of the U.S. Navy has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service as honorable.  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 two unauthorized absences for periods of 23 and 42 days respectively.  Under applicable regulations, a violation of UCMJ Article 86, unauthorized absence for more than 30 days, is considered a serious offense.  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.  Such conduct falls far short of that expected of a member of the U.S. military and does not meet the requirements for an upgrade of his characterization of service.  Relief is not warranted.

Since the NDRB has no jurisdiction over reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Navy, Marine Corps, or any other of the Armed Forces, NDRB is not authorized to change a reenlistment code.  An unfavorable “RE” code is, in itself, not a bar to reenlistment.  A request for a waiver can be submitted during the processing of a formal application for reenlistment through a recruiter.  Only the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) can make changes to reenlistment codes.

There is no requirement or law that grants recharacterization solely on the issue of obtaining enhancing employment opportunities and this issue does not serve to provide a foundation upon which the Board can grant relief.  Regulations limit the Board’s review to a determination on the propriety and equity of the discharge.

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), Change 18, effective 
12 Dec 1997 until 10 July 2000, 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 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.

E.  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.

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