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

Docket No. ND00-00700

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

ex-SHSN, USN
Docket No. ND00-00700

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 000503, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable.  The applicant requested a personal appearance hearing before a Traveling Panel closest to Columbus, OH.  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 and the NDRB does not travel outside the Washington, D.C. area.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 001121.  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.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

1.  While in the Navy, my Father died and my Grandfather became by guardian.  My Grandfather became seriously ill and I was granted emergency leave while he was in the hospital.  At the time my leave expired, my Grandfather was still hospitalized and not expected to live.  I called for a leave extension and was denied by the Chief Petty Officer.  I chose to stay with my Grandfather who did recover and returned to base. I was offered a choice between a general court or my present discharge.  The lady who was selected to defend me advised me to take the under Other Than Honorable discharge. Up until this incident I had a very good record in the service and now regret taking the advice, but, I was young and scared and did as I was advised. I now request my discharge be upgraded to Honorable.

Documentation

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

Copy of DD Form 214 (2 copies)
Travel Certificate Separation Without Orders (NAVPERS 4650/22) dtd 94JUN07
Enlisted Navy Strength Loss (NAVCOMPT 3067) dtd 95JUN06

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:    None
	Inactive:  USNR (DEP)	920626 - 930620	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  930621		Date of Discharge:  950607

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    01  11  17 (Doesn't exclude lost time)
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  4 

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  57

Highest Rate:  SHSN

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

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

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NDSM, B"E"R, SWASM, NUC, SSDR

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  91 

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 formerly 3630650.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

ADMIN DISCHARGE PACKAGE NOT CONTAINED IN SERVICE RECORD AND APPLICANT UNABLE TO PROVIDE.

950131:	Unauthorized absence over regular liberty from USS GEORGE WASHINGTON (CVN 73).

950301:	Declared a Deserter having been UA since 0700, 31JAN95.

950502:	Apprehended by New Rome Police Department, Columbus, Ohio at 2045, 02MAY95.  No civil charges pending.  Returned to military control 2045, 02MAY95 by Navy Deserter Information Point this date (91 days).

950505:	Transfer to USS GEORGE WASHINGTON (CVN 73) at TPU Norfolk VA.

950607:	Applicant discharge Under Other Than Honorable Conditions in lieu of trial by court martial.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 950607 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).

The applicant’s issue is non decisional.  Clearly the applicant made a choice to remain in unauthorized status.  The record shows the applicant remained UA until apprehended by authorities.  Relief is denied.

The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the re characterization of a discharge.  The applicant must be aware that 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 the civilian life subsequent to leaving the service.  Normally, to permit relief, an error or injustice must have been found to have existed during the period of enlistment in question.  Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent that such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review, may be considered by the NDRB.  The applicant provided no post service documentation for the Board’s consideration.

The applicant is reminded that he is eligible for a personal appearance hearing provided the application is received within 15 years from the date of discharge.  Representation at personal appearance hearing is highly recommended.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 9, effective 
22 Jul 94 until 2 Oct 96, 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 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:  A7100/A9301/A9231/A9217