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

Docket No. ND01-00793

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

 ex-TMSR, USN
Docket No. ND01-00793

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 010522, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable.  The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review.  The applicant listed Congressman M__ M_______ United States Congress as his representative on the DD Form 293.  In the acknowledgement to the applicant, he was informed that Members of Congress or their staff do not normally represent applicants.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 011214.  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/Separation in lieu of trial by court martial, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630650.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

1.  I deeply regret the decisions I made while in the military.  I was very immature and young at the time of my enlistment, while this doesn't excuse my mistakes.  During my enlistment and before I suffered many losses in my personal life.  The loss of two grandparents, my best friend committed suicide.  I suffered from discrimination on the ship I was assigned too in Italy, as is in documented by then Senator T____ S_____ and Congressman C______ R____ and Senator J____ H____.  I was a seventeen year old who had never left my rural hometown of Rowland, N.C. in Robeson County and to be sent to a foreign country was something I could not adjust too.  I ask you to please consider my circumstances and grant me this reprieve.  The only excuse I have is I was young and could not see the results of my actions at the time, but at that time I felt it was my only way out.

Documentation

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

Copy of DD Form 214

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   USN			None
	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	870827 - 880626	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  880627		Date of Discharge:  910503

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    01  00  27
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  17 (w/parental consent)	Years Contracted:  4 

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  31

Highest Rate:  TMSR

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  NOB		Behavior:  3.40 (1)		OTA:  NOB

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  None

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  649

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/separation in lieu of trial by court martial, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630650.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

890424:	Applicant declared a deserter on 890406 having been an unauthorized absentee since 890306 from USS ORION (AS-18).  SNM surrendered at NAVSTA Norfolk 1320, 890430 and was transferred to USS HUNLEY to be retained onboard awaiting transfer to ORION.  Subsequently, 0715, 890502 SNM commenced UA whereabouts unknown.  Later, documentation confirms that SNM was attached to Portsmouth NAVHOSP 890619 and received a psych eval in which he was recommended for ADMINSEP in accordance with NAVOP 013/87 and MILSPERMAN 3620200.  Further, documentation shows that SNM was transferred from NAVHOSP 890623 to NAVAMPHIBASE, Little Creek 1230, 890626 to TPU Norfolk and was later detached from TPU, Norfolk 890629, directed to report to USS ORION [Extracted from deserter report dtd 900507, Remarks Section]. 

900507:	Applicant declared a deserter on 890729 having been an unauthorized absentee since 890629 from USS ORION (AS-18).

910412:	Applicant apprehended by civil authorities on 910408 (2330) at Rowland NC.  Returned to military control 910409 (0025).  Transferred to TPU Charleston SC (UIC 31998) and retained on board pending disciplinary action/disposition.

910416:	Applicant apprehended by civil authorities on 910408 (2330) at Rowland NC.  Returned to military control 910409 (0025).  Transferred to TPU Charleston SC (UIC 31998) and retained on board pending disciplinary action/disposition.

910422:	Applicant requested an administrative discharge under other than honorable conditions in lieu of a trial by court-martial.  He consulted with counsel and was fully advised of the implications of his request.  The applicant stated he understood the elements of the offense(s) with which he was charged, and admitted he was guilty of all the charges preferred against him.  Specifically, he admitted to violating UCMJ, Article: 86 UA from 890629 to 910408 [649days/A].  The applicant stated she/he was completely satisfied with the counsel he had received. The applicant understood that if discharged under other than honorable conditions, it might deprive him of virtually all veterans' benefits based upon her/his current enlistment, and that he might expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life in situations wherein the type of service rendered or the character of discharge received therefrom may have a bearing.

910424:	Charges preferred to summary court-martial for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) Article 86:
	Unauthorized absence (UA) from 890620 to 910408 [649days/A].

910429:	Medical Officer, Naval Branch Medical Clinic, Naval Station, Charleston states psychiatric evaluation is not necessary.

910501:	The commanding officer, exercising GCMCA, approved the request for an administrative separation in lieu of a trial by court-martial, and directed applicant’s discharge.
PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 910503 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).

Issue 1.  The Board found that the applicant’s age, education level, and test scores qualified him for enlistment.  While he may feel that his immaturity and personal problems were factors that contributed to his actions, the record clearly reflects his willful disregard for the requirements of military discipline and demonstrated that he was unfit for further service.  The record is devoid of evidence that the applicant was not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions. Relief denied.

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 injustice must have existed during the period of enlistment in question.  No such error or injustice occurred during the applicant’s enlistment.  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.  However, the NDRB is authorized to consider outstanding post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge, 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.  Verifiable proof of any post-service accomplishments must be provided in order for the applicant to claim post-service conduct and behavior as a reason to upgrade a less than Honorable discharge.  Evidence of continuing educational pursuits, an employment record, documentation of community service, certification of non-involvement with civil authorities and proof of his not using drugs, are examples of verifiable documents that should have been provided to receive consideration for relief, based on post-service conduct.  The applicant did not provide sufficient documentation to warrant an upgrade to his discharge.  He is reminded that he remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of his discharge.  The applicant can provide additional documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments at that time.  Legal representation at a personal appearance hearing is highly recommended but not required.  Relief denied.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560A), Change 7, effective 
25 May 89 until 14 Aug 91, 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 “afls10.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/A9309/A9221