ex-AR, USN
ND06-01057

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request:

Application Received:  				20060611
	Characterization of Service:		
	Reason for Discharge:			COURT MARTIAL
	Discharge Authority:			MILPERSMAN 3640420
	Duty Assignment/Command at Discharge:	ALAMEDA CA

Applicant’s Request:	
	Characterization change to:		
	Narrative Reason change to: 		
	Review Requested:			
	Representation:				VETERANS SERVICE OFFICE
	Issues (as summarized by NDRB):		1. Personal problems i.e. family was the cause for his in service
                                                                                              misconduct. 
                                                                                         2. Requesting upgrade for Employment enhancement.

Decision:

Date of Decision:					20070706
Location of Board:				Washington D.C.
Complete Service Record:				
Complete Medical Record:			
Complete Discharge Package:			

Regarding propriety, the Board found the discharge:	
Regarding equity, the Board found the discharge:	
 (BCD only) The Board found that clemency was: 	

By a vote of  the Characterization shall  .	
By a vote of  the Narrative Reason shall  .

Summary of Service:

Prior Service:
Inactive: USNR (DEP)				19810519-19810528 
Active:        		               		NONE
Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment:  				19810529
Years Contracted:  				;        
Date of Discharge:				19920317 (Commenced appellate leave on 19830419)
Length of Service:				10  Yrs  10  Mos  15  Days
Time Lost During This Period:			169
Days Unauthorized Absence:			88     
Days Confinement:				81     

Education Level:  				
Age at this Enlistment:  				
AFQT:  						38
Highest Rate/Rank:				AR

Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):
Performance:					2.8 (2)
Behavior:					2.8 (2)
OTA:						3.0
Extracted from:  
Applicant’s Supporting Documents    Other:       

Awards and Decorations (as listed on the DD Form 214):
NONE

Service Record Entries Related to Characterization of Service or Narrative Reason for Separation

19810915:	NJP for violation(s) of UCMJ:
	Article 86: (3 specifications), Failure to go to appointed place of duty.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $150 for 1 month.
	No indication of appeal in the record.

19820124:	NJP for violation(s) of UCMJ:
	Article 86: Unauthorized absence from 19811130 to 19811224.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $150 for 1 month, restriction and extra duty for 14 days.
	No indication of appeal in the record.

19820805:	Special Court-Martial.
	Charge: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 86.
	Specification: Unauthorized absence from 19820310 to 19820314 and 19820423 to 19820604 and 10 specification of missing restricted muster between 19820618 and 19820620.
	Charge II: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 87: Missing movement on 19820427.
	Finding: Not found in record.
	Sentence: Confinement for 35 days at hard labor, forfeiture of $350.00 pay per month for 2 months.
	CA action 19820920:  Sentence approved and ordered executed.

19820805:	To confinement.

19820903:	From confinement.

19830116:	NJP for violation(s) of UCMJ:
	Article 86: (3 specifications), Failure to go appointed place of duty.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $286 for 1 month, restriction and extra duty for 45 days.
	No indication of appeal in the record.

19830225:	Special Court-Martial.
	Charge I: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 86 (36 specifications).
	Specification 1: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 0630, 19830117, to wit: Restricted Men’s Muster on the Hanger Deck.   Plea: Guilty.  Finding: Guilty.
	Specification 2: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 0630, 19830118, to wit: Restricted Men’s Muster on the Hanger Deck.   Plea: Guilty.  Finding: Guilty.
	Specification 3: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 2130, 19830118, to wit: Restricted Men’s Muster on the Hanger Deck.   Plea: Guilty.  Finding: Guilty.
	Specification 4: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 0630, 19830119, to wit: Restricted Men’s Muster on the Hanger Deck.   Plea: Guilty.  Finding: Guilty. 
	Specification 5: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 2130, 19830119, to wit: Restricted Men’s Muster on the Hanger Deck.   Plea: Guilty.  Finding: Guilty.
	Specification 6: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 0630, 19830120, to wit: Restricted Men’s Muster on the Hanger Deck.  Plea: Guilty.  Finding: Guilty.
	Specification 7: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 1630, 19830120, to wit: Restricted Men’s Muster on the Hanger Deck.  Plea: Guilty.  Finding: Guilty. 
	Specification 8: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 2130, 19830120, to wit: Restricted Men’s Muster on the Hanger Deck.  Plea: Guilty.  Finding: Guilty. 
	Specification 9: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 0630, 19830121, to wit: Restricted Men’s Muster on the Hanger Deck.  Plea: Guilty.  Finding: Guilty.
	Specification 10: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 1130, 19830121, to wit: Restricted Men’s Muster on the Hanger Deck.  Plea: Guilty.  Finding: Guilty. 
	Specification 11: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 1630, 19830121, to wit: Restricted Men’s Muster on the Hanger Deck.  Plea: Guilty.  Finding: Guilty.
	Specification 12: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 2130, 19830121, to wit: Restricted Men’s Muster on the Hanger Deck.  Plea: Guilty.  Finding: Guilty. 
	Specification 13: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 0630, 19830122, to wit: Restricted Men’s Muster on the Hanger Deck.  Plea: Guilty.  Finding: Guilty. 
	Specification 14: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 1130, 19830122, to wit: Restricted Men’s Muster on the Hanger Deck.  Plea: Guilty.  Finding: Guilty.
	Specification 15: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 1630, 19830122, to wit: Restricted Men’s Muster on the Hanger Deck.  Plea: Guilty.  Finding: Guilty.
	Specification 16: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 2130, 19830122, to wit: Restricted Men’s Muster on the Hanger Deck.  Plea: Guilty.  Finding: Guilty. 
	Specification 17: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 0630, 19830123, to wit: Restricted Men’s Muster on the Hanger Deck.  Plea: Guilty.  Finding: Guilty. 
	Specification 18: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 1130, 19830123, to wit: Restricted Men’s Muster on the Hanger Deck.  Plea: Guilty.  Finding: Guilty.
	Specification 19: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 1630, 19830123, to wit: Restricted Men’s Muster on the Hanger Deck.  Plea: Guilty.  Finding: Guilty.
	Specification 20: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 2130, 19830123, to wit: Restricted Men’s Muster on the Hanger Deck.  Plea: Guilty.  Finding: Guilty.
	Specification 21: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 0630, 19830124, to wit: Restricted Men’s Muster on the Hanger Deck.  Plea: Guilty.  Finding: Guilty.
	Specification 22: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 1130, 19830124, to wit: Restricted Men’s Muster on the Hanger Deck.  Plea: Guilty.  Finding: Guilty. 
	Specification 23 Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 1630, 19830124, to wit: Restricted Men’s Muster on the Hanger Deck.  Plea: Guilty.  Finding: Guilty.
	Specification 24: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 2130, 19830124, to wit: Restricted Men’s Muster on the Hanger Deck.   Plea: Guilty.  Finding: Guilty. 
	Specification 25: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 0630, 19830125, to wit: Restricted Men’s Muster on the Hanger Deck.  Plea: Guilty.  Finding: Guilty.
	Specification 26: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 1130, 19830125, to wit: Restricted Men’s Muster on the Hanger Deck.  Plea: Guilty.  Finding: Guilty. 
	Specification 27: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 1630, 19830125, to wit: Restricted Men’s Muster on the Hanger Deck.  Plea: Guilty.  Finding: Guilty.
	Specification 28: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 2130, 19830125, to wit: Restricted Men’s Muster on the Hanger Deck. Plea: Guilty.  Finding: Guilty. 
	Specification 29: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 1800, 19830117, to wit: Extra Duty Muster at the Master-at Arms Office.  Plea: Not Guilty.  Finding: Withdrawn.
	Specification 30: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 1800, 19830118, to wit: Extra Duty Muster at the Master-at -Arms Office.   Plea: Not Guilty.  Finding: Withdrawn.
	Specification 31: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 1800, 19830119, to wit: Extra Duty Muster at the Master-at -Arms Office.  Plea: Not Guilty.  Finding: Withdrawn.
	Specification 32: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 1800, 19830120, to wit: Extra Duty Muster at the Master-at -Arms Office.  Plea: Not Guilty.  Finding: Withdrawn.
	Specification 33: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 1800, 19830121, to wit: Extra Duty Muster at the Master-at -Arms Office.  Plea: Not Guilty.  Finding: Withdrawn.
	Specification 34: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 1800, 19830122, to wit: Extra Duty Muster at the Master-at -Arms Office.  Plea: Not Guilty.  Finding: Withdrawn. 
	Specification 35: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 1800, 19830124, to wit: Extra Duty Muster at the Master-at -Arms Office.  Plea: Guilty.  Finding: Guilty.
	Specification 36: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 1800, 19830125, to wit: Extra Duty Muster at the Master-at -Arms Office.  Plea: Guilty.  Finding: Guilty.
	Charge II: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 134:
	Specification:  Break said restriction on 0900, 19830124.  Plea: Guilty.  Finding: Guilty.
	Additional Charge I: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 86:
	Specification: Did on or about 0900, 19830124, without authority, absent himself from his unit, to wit: USS Enterprise, and did remain so absent until on or about 2100, 19830125. Plea: Guilty, excepting the word and figures “0700”, 19980126” substituting therefore the word and figure “2100”, 19830125”.To the excepted word and figures; not guilty.  To the substituting word and figures; guilty.  To Additional Charge I: guilty.  Finding: Guilty. 
	Additional Charge II: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 86 (24 specifications).
	Specification 1: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 0630, 19830126, to wit: Restricted Men’s Muster on the Hanger Deck.   Plea: Guilty.  Finding: Guilty.
	Specification 2: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 2130, 19830126, to wit: Restricted Men’s Muster on the Hanger Deck. Plea: Guilty.  Finding: Guilty. 
	Specification 3: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 0630, 19830127, to wit: Restricted Men’s Muster on the Hanger Deck.  Plea: Guilty.  Finding: Guilty.
	Specification 4: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 2130, 19830127, to wit: Restricted Men’s Muster on the Hanger Deck.  Plea: Guilty.  Finding: Guilty.
	Specification 5: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 0630, 19830128, to wit: Restricted Men’s Muster on the Hanger Deck.  Plea: Guilty.  Finding: Guilty.
	Specification 6: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 2130, 19830128, to wit: Restricted Men’s Muster on the Hanger Deck.  Plea: Guilty.  Finding: Guilty.
	Specification 7: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 0630, 19830129, to wit: Restricted Men’s Muster on the Hanger Deck.  Plea: Guilty.  Finding: Guilty.
 	Specification 8: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 2130, 19830129, to wit: Restricted Men’s Muster on the Hanger Deck.   Plea: Guilty.  Finding: Guilty.
	Specification 9: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 0630, 19830130, to wit: Restricted Men’s Muster on the Hanger Deck.  Plea: Guilty.  Finding: Guilty.
	Specification 10: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 2130, 19830130, to wit: Restricted Men’s Muster on the Hanger Deck.  Plea: Guilty.  Finding: Guilty.
	Specification 11: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 0630, 19830131, to wit: Restricted Men’s Muster on the Hanger Deck.  Plea: Guilty.  Finding: Guilty.
	Specification 12: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 2130, 19830131, to wit: Restricted Men’s Muster on the Hanger Deck.  Plea: Guilty.  Finding: Guilty.
	Specification 13: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 1800, 19830201, to wit: Extra Duty Muster at the Master-at-Arms Office. Plea: Not Guilty.  Finding: Withdrawn.
	Specification 14: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 1800, 19830202, to wit: Extra Duty Muster at the Master-at-Arms Office. Plea: Not Guilty.  Finding: Withdrawn.
	Specification 15: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 1800, 19830126, to wit: Extra Duty Muster at the Master-at-Arms Office. Plea: Guilty.  Finding: Guilty.
	Specification 16: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 1800, 19830127, to wit: Extra Duty Muster at the Master-at-Arms Office.  Plea: Not Guilty.  Finding: Withdrawn
	Specification 17: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 1800, 19830128, to wit: Extra Duty Muster at the Master-at-Arms Office.  Plea: Not Guilty.  Finding: Withdrawn
	Specification 18: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 1800, 19830129, to wit: Extra Duty Muster at the Master-at-Arms Office.  Plea: Not Guilty.  Finding: Withdrawn
	Specification 19: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 1800, 19830131, to wit: Extra Duty Muster at the Master-at-Arms Office. Plea: Not Guilty.  Finding: Withdrawn
	Specification 20: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 0630, 19830201, to wit: Restricted Men’s Muster on the Hanger Deck.  Plea: Guilty.  Finding: Guilty
	Specification 21: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 2130, 19830201, to wit: Restricted Men’s Muster on the Hanger Deck.  Plea: Guilty.  Finding: Guilty
	Specification 22: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 0630, 19830202, to wit: Restricted Men’s Muster on the Hanger Deck. Plea: Guilty.  Finding: Guilty.
	Specification 23: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 2130, 19830202, to wit: Restricted Men’s Muster on the Hanger Deck.  Plea:  Guilty.  Finding: Guilty.
	Specification 24: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 0630, 19830203, to wit: Restricted Men’s Muster on the Hanger Deck.  Plea:  Guilty.  Finding: Guilty.
 	Sentence: Confinement at hard labor for 5 months, forfeiture of $250.00 pay per month for 5 months, and a Bad Conduct Discharge.
	CA action 19830320:  Sentence approved, however, the execution of that portion extending to confinement at hard labor in excess of 60 days will be suspended for a period of nine months from the date of trial, at which time, unless sooner vacated, the suspended confinement at hard labor shall be remitted without further action.

19820805:	To confinement.

19820903:	From confinement.

Elements of Discharge:  [BCD]

Record of Trial Complete:				
Date Charges Preferred:				19830203
Date Charges Referred to Special Court-Martial:	19830215
Trial Date:					19830225
Applicant requested BCD:				
Length of BCD Suspension:			
Date Applicant to Confinement:			19830225
Date Applicant from Confinement:			19830415
Date Applicant to Voluntary Appellate Leave:	19830419     
NC&PB Action and Date:				Clemency review waived 19920224
NMCCA Action and Date:				Affirmed findings and sentence on 19830727     
Date Appellate Review Complete:			19900518
Date of SSPCMO ordering BCD be executed:	19920317
Date Applicant Discharged:			19920317

NDRB Documentary Review Conducted (date):	     
NDRB Documentary Review Docket Number:	     
NDRB Documentary Review Findings:		     

Additional Information Considered by Board

Type of documentation submitted by the Applicant and considered by the Board
       
       	Document Type					#Pages
       Related to Period of Service Under Review:
	Service/Medical Record:				2     
	Other Period of Service:				0     
       Related to Post-Service Period:
	Community Service:				0     
	Education:					0     
	Employment:					0     
	Health/Medical:					0     
	Character Statements:				0     
	Criminal Records Checks:				0     
	Additional Statements from Applicant:		1     
        Other Documentation	 (Describe Below)		0     

        Total Number of Pages:				3     

Applicant’s Issues as Summarized by the Board:
1.  Personal problems i.e. family was the cause for his in service misconduct.  
2.  Requesting upgrade for Employment enhancement.

Issue  2 - either  which the Board cannot form the basis of relief for the Applicant, or  the Board does not have the authority to grant the relief for which the Applicant petitioned.  The Applicant is directed to the Addendum regarding.  

Decisional Issues:

Issue 1:  ().  The Applicant contends his disciplinary problems were the result of stress caused by 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.  Relief is denied.  

In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of Government affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the Applicant.  After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Service Record Entries, Medical Record Entries, Elements of Discharge and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found the Applicant’s discharge proper and equitable.

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), effective 15 Aug 91 until 04 Mar 93, Article 3640420, DISCHARGE OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL ADJUDGED BY SENTENCE OF COURT‑MARTIAL.

B.  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 V, Para 502, Propriety and Para 503, Equity.

C.  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 87 (Missing movement) and Article 134 (Broke restriction).

ADDENDUM:  Information for the Applicant

Complaint Procedures:  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”.

Additional Reviews:  Subsequent to a document review, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the 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.  If a former member has been discharged for more than 15 years, has already been granted a personal appearance hearing or has otherwise exhausted his opportunities before the NDRB, the Applicant may petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR), 2 Navy Annex, Washington, DC 20370-5100 for further review.

Service Benefits:  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.

Employment/ Educational Opportunities:  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 of the propriety and equity of the discharge.  

Reenlistment/ RE-code:  Since the NDRB has no jurisdiction over reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Navy, Marine Corps, or any other of the Armed Forces, the NDRB is not authorized to change a reenlistment code.  Only the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) can make changes to reenlistment codes.  Additionally, the Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities.  An unfavorable “RE” code is, in itself, not a bar to reenlistment.  A request for a waiver can be submitted during the processing of a formal application for reenlistment through a recruiter.

Medical Conditions and Misconduct:  DoD disability regulations do not preclude a disciplinary separation.  Appropriate regulations stipulate that separations for misconduct take precedence over potential separations for other reasons.  Whenever a member is being processed through the Physical Evaluation Board, and subsequently is processed for an administrative involuntary separation for misconduct, the disability evaluation is suspended.  The Physical Evaluation Board case remains in suspense pending the outcome of the non-disability proceedings.  If the action includes either a punitive or administrative discharge for misconduct, the medical board report is filed in the member’s terminated health record.  Additionally, the NDRB does not have the authority to change a narrative reason for separation to one indicating a medical disability or “PTSD.”  Only the Board for Correction of Naval Records can grant this type of narrative reason change.  

Automatic Upgrades - 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 may be provided to the Board include proof of educational pursuits, verifiable employment records, documentation of community service, credible evidence of a substance free lifestyle and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities.  

Issues Concerning Bad-Conduct Discharges (BCD) – Because relevant and material facts stated in a court-martial specification are presumed by the NDRB to be established facts, issues relating to the Applicant’s innocence of charges for which he was found guilty cannot form a basis for relief.  With respect to a discharge adjudged by a court-martial, the action of the NDRB is restricted to upgrades based on clemency.  Clemency is an act of leniency that reduces the severity of the punishment imposed.  

Board Membership:  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