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

  ex-SR, USN 
Docket No. ND03-00609

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20030225.  The Applicant requests the 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 list any representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20040311.  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/IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT MARTIAL, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-106 (formerly 3630650).

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

1.  “On the 23 July 1999, I G_ N_ L_ (Applicant) formally on active duty absented myself without authority from my unit, to wit: Transient Personnel Unit located in Great Lakes, Illinois and did remain so until apprehended on the 12 May 2002.
My deeply regretted action was due to the fact that I having marital problems that actually led to the cause of my disenrollment from the Naval Hospital Corp School, Great Lakes, Illinois.  I was disenrolled for academic reasons.   Having lost the opportunity of pursuing the career of my dream.  I considered on going back home to get things under control and return to my unit since the thought of my beloved wife engaging in extra marital affairs due to my absence from home kept stressing and draining me mentally.  By the time things settled to normal, I had been considered a deserter.  The fear of not knowing what disciplinary action to face upon my return made me remain so until apprehended.”

Documentation

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

Applicant’s DD Form 214 (Member 1 and 4)
Character reference, dated January 28, 2003
Character reference, dated February 4, 2003

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   None
	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	990210 - 990316	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  990317		Date of Discharge:  020614

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    03  02  28
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  26			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  64

Highest Rate:  SR

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  NMF			Behavior:  NMF		OTA:  NMF

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NDSM

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  653

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT MARTIAL, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-106 (formerly 3630650).

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

990723:	Applicant to unauthorized absence.  [Extracted from DD Form 214, Block 29.]

020511:	Applicant from unauthorized absence (653 days/apprehended).  [Extracted from DD Form 214, Block 29.]

020614:	DD Form 214:  Applicant discharged under other than honorable conditions in lieu of a trial by court-martial, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-106.

Applicant’s separation package missing 

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20020614 under other than honorable conditions in lieu of a trial by court-martial (A and B).  In the absence of a discharge package, the Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (C) and, after a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, found that the discharge was proper and equitable (D and E).

Issue 1:  The Applicant's discharge characterization accurately reflects his service to his country.  The discharge was proper and equitable.  Normally, to permit relief, an error or inequity must have existed during the period of enlistment in question.  No such error or inequity is evident during the Applicant's enlistment.  While the Applicant may feel that his marital problems were contributing factors, they do not mitigate his disobedience of the orders and directives that regulate good order and discipline in the naval service.  His service record is marred by unauthorized absence for 653 days thus substantiating his misconduct.  Additionally, 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 the service.  Relief not warranted.

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 additional documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments or any other evidence related to the applicant’s 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), 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, 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 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 2, AUTHORITY/POLICY FOR DEPARTMENTAL DISCHARGE REVIEW.  

D.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 9, paragraph 9.2, PROPRIETY OF THE DISCHARGE.

E.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 9, paragraph 9.3, EQUITY OF THE DISCHARGE.

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 “afls14.jag.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:

		Naval Council of Personnel Boards
		Attn:  Naval Discharge Review Board
		720 Kennon Street SE Rm 309
		Washington Navy Yard DC  20374-5023