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

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

ex-SN, USN
Docket No. ND06-00957

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20060713.  The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions) and the Narrative Reason for Separation be changed to “in the interest of military service.”  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 20070517.  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 narrative reason for and 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 - ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Decisional Issues

Equity: Quality of service.

Equity: Post Service.

Documentation

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

Applicant’s DD Form 214 (Member 4)
Character Reference ltr from J_ C_, Director of Operations, AMSCOT Corporation, undated
Letter from Applicant, undated (4 pages)
Certificate of the Mystic and Sacred Order of Electrons and Electronics, dated January 11, 2001

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive:  USNR (DEP)	19991123 - 20000727	COG
	Active:    None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  20000728		Date of Discharge:  20011119

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    01  03  22  (Does not exclude lost time.)
	Inactive:  None

Time Lost During This Period (days):

	Unauthorized absence:  115 days
	Confinement:		  None

Age at Entry:  17 (Parental Consent)

Years Contracted:  4 (24-month extension)

Education Level:  12				AFQT:  71

Highest Rate:  SN

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: 

010504:	Medical Consultation:  Presenting Data:  Patient revealed during this screening that he received DUI on 010425.  His reported BAC of .083.  Patient states that he paid someone to purchase beer for him while enroute to the local mall (Gurnee Mills).  Patient states that he and his wife sat in the mall parking lot for approximately 1-1.5 hours while the patient consumed 4, 12 oz beers.  Patient states that while returning to base, he struck a parked vehicle outside of NTCGLAKES Gate #4.  Patient states that the local police department arrested him on suspicion of DUI.  Patient stated that he knew that this was a “stupid” mistake and he knew better.  Patient seemed remorseful that his driving after using chemical has caused difficulties in his life, and states that he is willing to face them head on and move forward.  Patient was attentive and appropriate throughout this screening interview.  Patient is currently anticipating Special Courts Martial for testing positive for cocaine on 010417.  Additionally patient has a civilian court date pending to address his DUI and the accident of hitting a parked care while within the city limits of North Chicago, Illinois.  Patient reports drinking and driving on several other occasions.

011023:	Charge preferred for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) Article 86: On or about 0700, 010629 without authority, absent himself from his organization and did remain so absent until on or about 1901, 011022.  

011023:	Applicant requested an administrative discharge in lieu of a trial by court-martial.  The Applicant waived his right to counsel and acknowledged that he understood the elements of the offense with which he was charged, and admitted he was guilty of the charge preferred against him.  Specifically, he admitted to violating UCMJ, Article 86: On or about 0700, 010629 without authority, absent himself from his organization and did remain so absent until on or about 1901, 011022.  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. 

011030:	The Commanding Officer, TPU, Great Lakes, approved the request for an administrative separation in lieu of a trial by court-martial, and directed Applicant’s discharge with characterization of service under Other Than Honorable conditions.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20011119 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).  The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (E).

Equity: Quality of Service:  The Applicant claims his discharge was inequitable because it was based on an isolated incident after exemplary basic training, BE/E school and A school. 

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 his admission of guilt of and subsequent discharge for violation of Article 86 (Unauthorized absence more than 30 days) of the UCMJ.  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 maintained consistent employment since being discharged from military service. He states “My life has been on course for some time now and the future looks very promising.”

Normally, to permit relief, a procedural impropriety or inequity must have occurred during the discharge process for the period of enlistment in question.  The Board discovered no impropriety after a review of Applicant’s case.  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, proof of a substance free lifestyle and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities.  As of this time, the Applicant has not provided sufficient post-service documentation to consider mitigating the misconduct that resulted in the characterization of discharge.  Relief is denied.

The Applicant claims he completed his “A” school curriculum and is requesting his completion of “A” school be annotated on his DD Form 214.  For the edification of the Applicant NDRB does not have the authority to add course completion data to the DD Form 214.  However, the Applicant may petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) to have this information added to the DD Form 214.  
 
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), Change 29, effective 
11 Jul 2000 until 21 Aug 2002, 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, absence without leave 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, 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