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

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

V  ex-HN, USN
Docket No. ND05-01007

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20050601.  The Applicant requests the Discharge 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 designate a representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20060525.  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 a trial by court-martial.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

“By changing the action, I will be able to obtain Federal/State employment in Healthcare and Criminal Justice fields to reach a level of achievement and support for a single parent of 2 children to which live with me.  Also by changing the judgment, the medical problems I sustained during service will be assisted with.  My overall goal is to start my own business that supports and assist with the building of the communities far and abroad to help children as well as their parents by providing events and activities that promote teamwork and togetherness.”

Applicant’s Remarks:  (Taken from the DD Form 293) The only statement I made to the U.S. Armed Forces that I knew to be false was that I had no history of Asthma to which I did but never the whole time I served, didn’t have any problems or didn’t fail a PRT.

Documentation

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

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)	20010731 – 20010801		COG
	Active:    None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  20010802		Date of Discharge:  20040618

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    02  10  17  
	Inactive:  None

Time Lost During This Period (days):

	Unauthorized absence:  none
	Confinement:		  none

Age at Entry:  25

Years Contracted:  4 (12 month extension)

Education Level:  12				AFQT:  62

Highest Rate:  HN

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.3 (3) 		Behavior:  2.6 (3)		OTA:  2.96

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

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events: 

040521:	The Commanding General, Marine Corps Recruit Depot/Eastern Recruiting Region, exercising GCMCA, approved the request for an administrative separation in lieu of a trial by court-martial, and directed Applicant’s discharge.

040618:	DD Form 214: Applicant discharged under other than honorable conditions by reason of in lieu of trial by court martial per MILPERSMAN 1910-106 

Service Record contained partial Administrative Discharge package

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20040618 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 regularity of governmental affairs.  As such, the Board presumed that the Applicant requested discharge to escape trial by court-martial; had the elements of the offense(s) for which he was charged fully explained by counsel; admitted guilt to the offense(s); and had a complete understanding of the negative consequences of his actions.  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.

The Veterans Administration determines eligibility for post-service benefits not the Naval Discharge Review Board.  There is no requirement or law that grants recharacterization solely on the issue of obtaining Veterans' benefits and this issue does not serve to provide a foundation upon which the Board can grant relief.  Additionally, the Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment or educational opportunities.  Regulations limit the Board’s review to a determination on the propriety and equity of the discharge. 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.  The Applicant can provide documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments or any additional evidence related to this 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 30 May 2005, 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, upon conviction by a 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, Para 211, Regularity of Government Affairs.  

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