Author: CAP
Last saved by: Department of the Navy
Company: NCPB

Docket No. ND00-00310

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

ex-MSSN, USN
Docket No. ND00-00310

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 000105, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable.  The applicant requested 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 000810.  After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, NDRB discerned no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the applicant’s service.  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 3630650.

The NDRB did note an administrative error on the original DD Form 214.  Block 28, Narrative Reason for Separation, should read:  “IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT MARTIAL” vice “MISCONDUCT”.  The original DD Form 214 should be corrected or reissued as appropriate. 

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues (verbatim)

1.  My name is R_ S. F_ (Applicant).  I served 3 years & 339 days in the United States Navy.  I was of sound body & mind when I took the actions I took.  I was also young & immature!  So when they (my family) called the base to tell me that my Mother was sick, I just took off.  I didn't think at all!  I'm not asking for sympathy I just want a fair review of my records & evaluations during my time served.  Veteran of Desert Storm.  Thank You.

Documentation

Only the service and medical records were reviewed, as the applicant did not provide additional documentation for the Board to consider.

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:    None
	Inactive:  USNR (DEP)	890508 - 890622	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  890623		Date of Discharge:  931201

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    04  05  09
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  4 

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  48

Highest Rate:  MS3

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.45 (4)	Behavior:  3.45 (4)		OTA:  3.6

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  SSDR, NDSM, SWASM 

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  133

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 3630650.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

[ADMIN DISCHARGE PACKAGE NOT CONTAINED IN SERVICE RECORD AND APPLICANT DID NOT PROVIDE, AS REQUESTED.  ADDITIONALLY, APPLICANT'S PREVIOUS APPLICATION FOR UPGRADE WAS CLOSED WITHOUT ACTION DUE TO MISSING INFORMATION.]

901224:	Unauthorized absence from USS THEODORE ROOSEVELT, Norfolk, VA.

901227:	Surrendered onboard USS THEODORE ROOSEVELT.

910122:	Absence unexcused, charged 3 days of lost time.

930316:	Unauthorized absence from TPU Norfolk, VA. 

930331:	Surrendered onboard TPU Norfolk, VA.  No known civilian charges pending (15 days).  Charged 15 days of lost time.  Restored to full duty status.

930517:	Unauthorized absence from NAS Norfolk, at 1930.  Intentions unknown.

930802:	Report of Declaration of Desertion.  Applicant declared deserter on 28JUL92 having been UA since 1930, 17 MAY 93 from NAS Norfolk, VA.

930915:	Report of Return of Deserters.  Applicant apprehended by civilian authorities 1505, 9SEP93 at Norfolk, VA, returned to military control 1552, 9SEP93 at NAS Norfolk, VA and retained on board for disciplinary action (115 days).

931130:	Branch Medical Clinic, NS Norfolk, VA:  Applicant found fit for separation.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 931201 under other than honorable conditions in lieu of a trial by court-martial (A and B).  The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (C).  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 (D and E).

In the applicant’s issue 1, the Board found that the applicant was discharged in lieu of trial by court martial and therefore admitted that he was guilty of certain offenses, to wit:  unauthorized absence.  The applicant was UA on three separate occasions, for a period of 3 days, 15 days and 133 days, at which time he was apprehended.  Although there were certain items missing from the applicant’s service record and discharge package, the Board presumes regularity and the burden of proof is put on the applicant to show that his rights were prejudiced.  The applicant states that his mother was sick, but the Board found nothing in the records nor did the applicant submit any supporting documentation that showed that his personal problems were of sufficient magnitude that they could not be resolved through standard military channels or by the applicant’s chain of command.  In fact, the Board found that the applicant’s age, education, test scores, prior service, promotions and awards were sufficient to qualify him for enlistment.  The Board will not grant relief on the basis of this issue.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 5, effective 
05 Mar 93 until 21 Jul 94, Article 3630650, PROCEDURES FOR PROCESSING ENLISTED PERSONNEL FOR 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 [e.g., 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

The remaining portion of this document is divided into 4 Parts: Part I - Applicant’s Issues and Documentation, Part II - Summary of Service, Part III – Rationale for Decision and Pertinent Regulation/Law, Part IV - Information for the Applicant.
INDEX:  A7000/A9217/A9301/A9207