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

Docket No. ND00-00360

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

 ex-SR, USN
Docket No. ND00-00360

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 000127, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to Honorable.  The applicant requested a personal appearance hearing review.  The applicant did not designate a representative on the DD Form 293.  In the acknowledgement letter to the applicant, he was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 000824.  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: BAD CONDUCT/Convicted by special court martial, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3640420.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

1.  (GOOD CITIZENSHIP) For the last 12 years I have been a good citizen, I have never been arrested during my time out of the armed forces.  I have always tried to do what's right, enclosed is letters from my clergyman Rev. A_ N. J_, my manager C_ I_ and the president of the company I work for S_ E_.

2.  (UA) While looking into my service record please notice that other than the two uas' on there, but what isn't in my service record is the circumstances behind the uas'. Which is, 1) the death of my father whom I had a very close bond with, I had taken his death very hard, as well as my family.  2) my wife at the time was taking me through a lost of changes, she was not faithful and what really took the toll on me was the fact that she had conceived a child by another man.  3) my youngest sister was on drugs and I was trying to help her as well as help myself get through a trying time.  Don’t get me wrong, I'm not saying that what I did was right; at that time I just could not handle the situation.  I was young an immature, I have grown since then.  Since that I have found my place with God, and I'm better able to handle just about any situation that comes my way.  Finally, please notice that other than the UAS' in my service record there is not other incident of any nature in there.  I never caused any trouble while on active duty and I was never disrespectful to any officer or crew member.

NOTE:  I hope that the members of the review board will consider my request and that you will take this letter and all other correspondents in full consideration when deciding whether to grant me the military upgrade.

Documentation

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

Copy of DD Form 214
Applicant's letter to the Board dated July 10, 1998
Clergyman Rev. A_ N. J_ undated letter
Applicant's Manager, C_ I_, Seybold Publications, undated letter
Company's President, S_ E_, Seybold Publications, undated letter 
Applicant's Spouse (R_ B_) letter dated June 24, 1998
Applicant's Marriage Certificate 27 Sep 1997
Death Certificate of Applicant's father
Applicant's Final Decree in Divorce Aug 11, 1997 (4 pages)
Birth Certificate of Applicant's Daughter 05-27-1999
54 pages of service and medical records

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:    None
	Inactive:  USNR (DEP)	841030 - 841118	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  841119		Date of Discharge:  880204

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    03  02  16 (Doesn't exclude lost time.)
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  21			Years Contracted:  4 

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  24

Highest Rate:  SA

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.5 (2)	Behavior:  3.0 (2)		OTA:  3.4

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  None 

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  185 

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

BAD CONDUCT/Convicted by Special Court Martial, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3640420.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

850328:	Unauthorized absence from USS PELELIU over leave as of 1545.  Intentions unknown.

850423:	Applicant surrendered to military authorities at 1700, onboard Naval Station Philadelphia, PA. (25 days UA).

850426:	Applicant commenced unauthorized absence at 0730, 85APR26, while being processed by NAVSTA Phila, PA for transfer to USS PELELIU (LHA 5) under technical arrest orders.  Intentions unknown.

850507:	Report of Declaration of Desertion (NAVPERS 1600-3).  Applicant declared a deserter on 06MAY85 having been an unauthorized absentee since 1545, 28APR85 from USS PELELIU (LHA-5).

850729:	Surrendered to PSD Philadelphia, PA at 0900.  Transferred to USS PELELIU under escort.  Reported to USS PELELIU at 0255, 84AUG12  (94 days). 

851024:	Special Court Martial
	Charge I:  violation of the UCMJ, Article 86 (2 Specs).
	Specification 1:  Unauthorized absence from 1545, 85MAR28 to 1700, 85APR23.
	Specification 2:  Unauthorized absence from 0730, 85APR26 to 0900, 85JUL29.
	Charge II:  violation of the UCMJ, Article 87 - missing ship's movement on 84APR04.
	Findings: Guilty.
	Sentence:  To perform hard labor without confinement for 45 days, reduction to E-1.
	CA 851125:  Sentence approved and ordered executed.

860404:	Unauthorized absence as of 1600 from USS PELELIU.  Intentions unknown.

860407:	Surrendered on board USS PELELIU at 0700 (3 days).

860418:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (2 Specs):  Unauthorized absence from 1600, 86APR04 to 0700, 86APR07 and unauthorized absence from 1600, 86ARP09 to 0630, 86APR10.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $100 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 15 days (5 days of each suspended for 90 days).  No indication of appeal in the record.

860514:	Retention Warning:  Advised of deficiency (Unauthorized absence), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning. 

860802:	On unauthorized absence over liberty from USS PELELIU (LHA-5) as of 0730.

860802:	Surrendered on aboard USS PELELIU at 1030 (3 hours UA).

870203:	Unauthorized absence from USS PELELIU as of 1930.  Intentions unknown.

870306:	Report of Declaration of Deserter (NAVPERS 1600-3).  Applicant declared a deserter on 87MAR04 having been an unauthorized absentee since 1930, 87FEB03 from USS PELELIU.

870420:	Applicant arrived at NAVSTA Long Beach, CA and was confined at 1340.

870421:	Report of Return of Deserter.  Applicant apprehended by civil authorities at 1130, 87APR20 at Philadelphia, PA.  Returned to military control 1200, 87APR20.  Pending transfer to NACU Great Lakes, IL for further transfer to NACU San Francisco, CA for further transfer to TPU San Diego, CA for further transfer to USS PELELIU.  Estimated date of arrival - 87APR21 (75 days UA).

870505:	Special Court Martial
	Charge I:  violation of the UCMJ, Article 86:  Unauthorized absence on or about 87FEB03 to on or about 87APR20.
	Findings:  Guilty.
	Sentence:  Confinement for 31 days, reduction to E-1, Bad Conduct discharge.
	CA 870610:  Sentence approved and ordered executed, except for bad conduct discharge.

870505:	Joined Naval Brig, Naval Station Long Beach, for confinement.

870515:	From confinement and returned to full duty.

870728:	NMCCMR:  The findings of guilty and sentence, as approved on review, are affirmed.

880204:	SSPCMO:  Article 71c, UCMJ, having been complied with, Bad Conduct discharge ordered executed.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 880204 with Bad Conduct due to conviction at Special Court Martial (A).  The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (B).  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).

In the applicant’s issue 1, the Board determined this issue is without merit.  The applicant states in the last 12 years he has been a good citizen, never arrested while out of the armed forces.  The applicant was an unauthorized absentee for a total 197 days.  On three occasions he was UA for over 30 days, qualifying him as a deserter.  He went to Special Court Martial on two occasions and was found guilty of all charges.  He showed a total disregard for Navy regulations and ignored repeated warnings to correct his behavior.  The Board determined the applicant’s offenses were purposeful and egregious and the characterization of his service to his country was accurate.  The discharge was proper and equitable.  Relief denied.

In the applicant’s issue 2, the Board determined this issue is without merit.  The applicant states he had two UA’s and that the death of his father, marital problems, and sister’s drug problems were the source of his misconduct.  The applicant’s father passed away in September of 1986.  By that time, the applicant had been UA for 25 days, 94 days and 3 days, on three separate occasions.  There is no indication in the applicant’s service record, nor did the applicant provide any evidence, to show he attempted to use his chain of command to solve other family issues.  The Board determined there is no creditability in the applicant’s stated issues.  The discharge was proper and equitable.  Relief denied.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560A), effective 15 Jun 87 until 13 Dec 89, Article 3640420, DISCHARGE OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL ADJUDGED BY SENTENCE OF COURT‑MARTIAL.

B.  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.  

C.  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.
D.  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 D.C.  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:  A6800/A9221/A9231/A9237/