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

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

ex-AOAN, USN
Docket No. ND06-00843

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20060605.  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 20070329.  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 serious offense - absent without leave - 30 days or more.

The NDRB did note administrative error(s) on the original DD Form 214.  Block 28, Narrative Reason for Separation, should read:  “MISCONDUCT (AWOL).”  The Commander, Navy Personnel Command, Millington, TN, will be notified, recommending the DD Form 214 be corrected or reissued, as appropriate.

PART I - ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Decisional Issues

Equity – Quality of service

Equity – Post service

Documentation

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

Applicant’s DD Form 214
Letter from A_ M. P_, undated

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive:  USNR (DEP)	19991221 - 20000123	COG
	Active:    None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  20000124		Date of Discharge:  20050824

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    05  07  01  (Does not exclude lost time.)
	Inactive:  None

Time Lost During This Period (days):

	Unauthorized absence:  691 days
	Confinement:		  None

Age at Entry:  20

Years Contracted:  4 (30-month extension)

Education Level:  9 GED			AFQT:  58

Highest Rate:  AO3

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.4 (5)			Behavior:  3.2 (5)		OTA:  3.35

Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, (as listed on the DD Form 214):  9MM Pistol Gun Qual, Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, Sea Service Deployment Ribbon, National Defense Service Medal, Good Conduct Medal

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT (AWOL), authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-142 (formerly 3630605).  

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events: 

991221:	Pre-service waiver granted for one non-minor misdemeanor and one minor 
		misdemeanor.

030206:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 91: Insubordinate conduct toward warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer.
	Award:  Forfeiture ½ months pay per month, reduction to E-3.  Forfeiture suspended for 6 months.  No indication of appeal in the record.

031003:	Applicant to unauthorized absence 0600, 031003.

050823:	Applicant from unauthorized absence (691 days) [Extracted from DD Form 214]. 

050824:	DD Form 214:  Applicant discharged in absentia by reason of misconduct (AWOL), authority: MILPERSMAN 1910-142 with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions

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, in absentia, on 20050824 by reason of misconduct due to commission of serious offense - absent without leave - 30 days or more (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 presumption of regularity of governmental affairs was applied by the Board in this case in the absence of a complete discharge package (E).

Equity – Quality of service:  The Applicant contends that the characterization of his service was overwhelmingly honorable.

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 nonjudicial punishment proceedings for violation of UCMJ Article 91 and a 691 day period of unauthorized absence, a violation of UCMJ Article 86.  Violations of UCMJ Articles 86 and 91 are considered to be serious offenses for which a punitive discharge is authorized if adjudged by a special or general court martial.   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.

Equity – Post service: The Applicant contends that he is an honorable law abiding citizen.

The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge.  However, 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 the civilian life subsequent to leaving the service.  Normally, to permit relief, a procedural impropriety or inequity must have been found to have existed during the period of enlistment in question.  Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent that such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the Applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review, is considered.  In an attached letter, the Applicant provided the name and phone number of a hiring manager of a business where he had recently applied for employment.  The Applicant’s documentation of post-service accomplishments need to be more encompassing than those provided.  For example, the Applicant could have produced evidence of continuing educational pursuits, a verifiable employment record, documentation of community service, and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities.  The Board determined that the documentation provided by the Applicant did not mitigate the misconduct that resulted in the characterization of discharge.  Therefore, no relief will be granted.

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 26 April 05 until Present, Article 1910-142 [formerly 3630605]. SEPARATION 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, Article 86 (Absence without leave, more than 30 days).

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 Instruction 1332.28, you may submit a complaint in accordance with Enclosure (5) of that Instruction.  You should read Enclosure (5) of the Instruction 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 Instruction 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