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

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

 ex-SR, USNR
Docket No. ND05-01099

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20050623.  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.  
In the acknowledgement letter the Applicant was informed that he was approaching the 15 year point for review by this Board and was encouraged to attend a personal appearance hearing in the Washington, DC area.  The Applicant did not respond.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20051215.  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 have put in for a change of Discharge.  I am sending my ASVAB scores.  I would like to get back in the Army to serve my country.  I feel because that I was enlisted under false reasons I feel I should be given a second chance.  I was immature and, I felt that being promised Seabee’s and just because my contract had open after Seabees the Navy was going to stick me in a job that was not what I had signed up for.  I had enlisted for 2 years and they informed me that getting into Seabees was a 2-year waiting list.  So I just left for home after my 6th week in basic training.  I just felt I was lied to and that regardless of the consequences I was going home.  It was a mistake.  I would like to get back in the Army. 

I have no documentation I would like to submit other than my data report.  And that I am working for the 411th BSB as a mail clerk.  If there are any questions please don’t hesitate to call me at (phone number omitted) I am in Germany my wife is stationed at Heidelberg Germany.”

Applicant’s Remarks:  “I feel that because I am older but still in great shape.  I would like to reenlist back into the army and fix the mistakes I have made.  I know that I’m not the only person who would like to fix the past.  I am willing to give the military a second chance I would like for the Government to give me a second chance.  You won’t be disappointed.  Thank you for your time.  If I could get this rushed threw the board so I can get in and get deployed with the 5th ARCOM.  I would be greatly appreciated.”

Documentation

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

ASVAB Data scores (2 pages)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive:  None
	Active:    None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  19910918		Date of Discharge:  19911226

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    00  03  08  (Does not exclude lost time.)
	Inactive:  None

Time Lost During This Period (days):

	Unauthorized absence:	52 days
	Confinement:			None

Age at Entry:  23

Years Contracted:  8

Education Level:  12				AFQT:  54

Highest Rate:  SR

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):  National Defense Service Medal.

* Not Available

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/separation in lieu of trial by court martial, authority:  MILPERSMAN, Article 3630650.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events: 

910918:	Commenced active duty for a period of 2 years.

911024:	Applicant to unauthorized absence at 0410 on 911024.

911125:	Applicant declared a deserter.

911215:	Applicant apprehended by civil authorities at 1145 on 911215

911215:	Applicant returned to military control at 1330 on 911215 (52 days/apprehended).

911218:	Charges preferred for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) Article 86:  In that Seaman Recruit D_ J. B_ (Applicant), U.S. Naval Reserve, Recruit Training Command, Great Lakes, Illinois, on active duty, did, on or about 24 October 1991, without authority absent himself from his organization, to wit: Recruit Training, located at Great Lakes, Illinois, until he surrendered on or about 15 December 1991.

911220:	Applicant requested an administrative discharge under other than honorable conditions in lieu of a trial by court-martial.  He consulted with counsel and was fully advised of the implications of his request.  The Applicant stated he understood the elements of the offense with which he was charged, and admitted he was guilty of all the charges preferred against him.  Specifically, he admitted to violating UCMJ, Article 86:  Unauthorized absence from 24 October 1991 to 15 December 1991.  The Applicant stated he was completely satisfied with the counsel he had received. 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.

Unknown:	The Commanding Officer, Recruit Training Command, Great Lakes, approved the request for an administrative separation in lieu of a trial by court-martial, and directed Applicant’s discharge under other than honorable conditions.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19911226 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 records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (C and D).  

In a signed statement, the Applicant requested an administrative discharge under other than honorable conditions in lieu of a trial by court-martial.  He consulted with counsel and was fully advised of the implications of his request.  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 Applicant stated he understood the elements of the offenses with which he was charged.  He admitted he was guilty of violating UCMJ Article 86, unauthorized absence from 19911024 to 19911215, a period of 52 days.  Under applicable regulations, the Applicant’s misconduct 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.

The Applicant desires to reenlist in the United States Army.  The NDRB has no jurisdiction over reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Navy, Marine Corps, or any other of the Armed Forces 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.

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.  Relief denied.

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), effective 15 Aug 91 until 
04 Mar 93, Article 3630650, PROCEDURES FOR PROCESSING ENLISTED PERSONNEL FOR 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.

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