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

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

ex-AR, USNR
Docket No. ND06-00517

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20060131.  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 20070110.  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 and/or attached document/letter: 

“Of my own opinion I cannot say that their’s and error in my record, but I changle the justice in it, I was a young boy who was looking to become a man I join the Navy for all these things and more, while serving I got married I was station on the East Coast with my wife, later I was order to move to the West Coast after the trip around I got leave for X-mas and went home to suprise my family and wife, to make a long store short I was the one suprise I just didn’t understand things then like now.  And if I could do everything over, I never would have handle things the way I did but I got myself together and came back and paid my debt, now Im a man I realize that the person I am today is because of my experience in the military.  I been out of the military for 13 years now, but my experience will be a part of me for the rest of my life.  So Im writing to ask for a chance to right a wrong.  I love my country and my country been good to me, but I hope the military dont whole this mistake I made against me for the rest of my life.  I serve 2 years 10 months 4 days as show on my DD 214 of a 3 year enlistment.”

Applicant’s remarks (block 16):

“Help me to right a wrong.”

Documentation

In addition to the service and medical records, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:

Applicant’s DD Form 214 (Service - 2)

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:  19880830		Date of Discharge:  19910919

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    02  10  04  (Does not exclude lost time.)
	Inactive:  00  02  16

Time Lost During This Period (days):

	Unauthorized absence:  152 days
	Confinement:		   25 days

Age at Entry:  20

Years Contracted:  8 (Active Mariner Program:  36 months active duty; 36 months satisfactory performance in Selected Reserve; 24 months in Individual Ready Reserve.)

Education Level:  12				AFQT:  28

Highest Rate:  AN

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.3 (3)		Behavior:  3.3 (3)		OTA:  3.33

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

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.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events: 

881116:	Commenced active duty for a period of 36 months in the Active Mariner Program.

900108:	Applicant to unauthorized absence at 0700.

900109:	Applicant from unauthorized absence at 0645.

900731:	Applicant UA from 0700-0720.

900815:	Applicant to unauthorized absence at 0700.

900816:	Applicant from unauthorized absence at 0700 (1 day).

901228:	Applicant to unauthorized absence at 0730 on 901228.

910111:	Applicant missed ship’s movement.

910127:	Applicant declared a deserter.

910528:	Applicant from unauthorized absence at 0730 (151 days/surrendered).  EAOS changed to 920405.

910802:	Summary Court-Martial.
	Charge I:  violation of the UCMJ, Article 86:
	Specification: UA fm unit fm 901228 to 910528.
	Charge II:  violation of the UCMJ, Article 87:
	Specification: Missing ship’s movement by design on 910111.
	Finding: to Charges and the specifications thereunder, guilty.
	Sentence: Forfeiture of $502.00, confinement for 30 days, reduction to E-1.
	CA action 910809:  Sentence approved and ordered executed. 

910802:	Applicant found fit for confinement.

910802:	Applicant to confinement.

910803:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with the least favorable characterization of service as under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct as evidenced by the commission of serious offenses.

910806:	Applicant advised of rights and having consulted with counsel, elected to waive all rights.  Applicant did not object to separation.

910826:	Applicant from confinement (25 days).

910831:	Commanding Officer, USS ABRAHAM LINCOLN, recommended to BUPERS that the Applicant be discharged under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct as evidenced by the commission of serious offenses.  Commanding Officer’s comments:  “AR R_ (Applicant) reported to this command on 890323 and proved to be an average performer.  His unauthorized absence of five months combined with missing ship’s movement by design resulting in a court-martial has shown his total disregard for the Navy’s rules and regulations.  AR R_ lacks the proper initiative, motivation and maturity to be a productive member of the Navy.  Therefore, I strongly recommend that AR R_ be discharged from the Naval Service with an other than honorable discharge due to misconduct as evidenced by the commission of serious offenses.”

910902:	Applicant found physically qualified for separation.

910906:	BUPERS directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19910919 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).  

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 a Summary Court-Martial for violations of Articles 86 and 87 of the UCMJ.  The NDRB advises the Applicant that certain serious offenses warrant separation from the Navy in order to maintain proper order and discipline. Violations of Article 86 and 87 are considered serious offenses and a punitive discharge is authorized if adjudged at a special or general court-martial.  The Applicant implies that his disciplinary problem was the result of stress caused by his family situation.  The NDRB 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.  It must be noted that most members of the Navy serve honorably and therefore earn their honorable discharges.  In fairness to those members of the Navy, commanders and separation authorities are tasked to ensure that undeserving Sailors receive no higher characterization than is due.  The NDRB found that the Applicant's service was equitably characterized.  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 NDRB has no authority to provided additional review of this case since Applicant’s discharge occurred more than 15 years ago.  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 15560C), effective 15 Aug 91 until 
04 Mar 93, 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, Articles 86, Absence without leave (more than 30 days) and 87, Missing movement.

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