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

 ex-SA, USN
Docket No. ND02-00587

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 020329, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions or entry level separation or uncharacterized.  The Applicant requested a personal appearance hearing before the board in the Washington National Capital Region.  The Applicant listed the American Legion as the representative on the DD Form 293.  In the acknowledgement letter to the Applicant, the Applicant 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 030107.  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 1910-106 (formerly 3630650).

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as submitted

1. (Equity issue) This former member avers that the Navy failed to fulfill the promises made to him by his recruiter and then refused to terminate his contract.  Given the circumstances, he proffers that his violation of UCMJ, Art. 86 was justified and therefore he warrants a recharacterization of his discharge to one under honorable conditions.

2.  (Equity issue) This former member further requests that the Board include provisions of SECNAVINST 5420.174C, enclosure (1), Chapter 9, as it pertains to post-service conduct, in assessing the merits of this application.

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)
Entry Level Performance and Conduct Discharge and Defective Enlistment Discharge paragraphs
Statement from Applicant, undated and unsigned
Letter to Senator from Applicant's mother, undated (2 copies)
Letter from Commanding Officer, USS DUBUQUE (LPD 8) dated March 16, 2001 (2 copies)
Letter from lawyer dated March 14, 2001 (2 copies)
Letter to Senator dated March 1, 2001 (2 copies)
Letter from Applicant's parents dated January 8, 2001 (2 copies)
Letter from an attorney to Captain dated February 1, 2001
Three pages from Applicant's service record
One page from a Navy web site dated April 12, 2001
Letter from United States Senate dated March 26, 2001
Letter from United States Senate dated May 21, 2001
Letter to Senator dated May 9, 2001
Letter from Applicant's father dated February 12, 2001
Character reference, undated
Letter from Applicant's grandmother dated February 1, 2001
Letter from Applicant's aunt dated February 2, 2001
Letter from Applicant's grandfather dated February 2, 2001
Letter from family friends dated February 6, 2001
Letter from Applicant's uncle dated February 6, 2001
Letter from Applicant's cousin dated February 15, 2001
Letter from Applicant's friends dated February 1, 2001
Letter dated February 13, 2001
Letter from Applicant's uncle dated February 12, 2001
Letter from Applicant's reverend dated February 11, 2001
Letter from Applicant's friend dated February 13, 2001
Letter from Applicant's aunt dated February 7, 2001
Letter from Applicant's friend, undated
Letter from Applicant's friend, undated
Letter from Applicant's family friends, undated
Letter from Applicant's aunt dated February 15, 2001
Letter from Applicant's uncle dated February 9, 2001

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   None
	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	000706 - 000723	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  000724		Date of Discharge:  010608

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    00  10  15
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  19			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  43

Highest Rate:  SA

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  NMF		Behavior:  NMF		OTA:  NMF

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  None

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  36

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:

010517:	Charges preferred to special court-martial for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) Article 86: Unauthorized absence (UA) from 0700, 10Apr01 until 1315, 16May01 (36 days).

010517:	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: Unauthorized absence from 0700, 10Apr01 until 1315, 16May01 (36 days).  The Applicant stated 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 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. 

010525:	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 010608 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 contends he was justified to commence a period of unauthorized absence because the Navy failed to fulfill promises made to him by his recruiter.  The Board found the Applicant's contentions without merit.  The Applicant committed a serious offense that warranted the type and characterization of service he received.  The term "serious offense" should not be confused with what is considered serious in the civilian world.  The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) categorizes a wide range of offenses: disrespectful language, failure to obey a lawful order or written regulation, drunken driving, forgery, fraud, missing ship's movement, unauthorized absence in excess of 30 days, making false official statements, and so forth, right up to the most "serious" crimes of spying, aiding the enemy in time of war, mutiny, rape and murder.  Although all of these offenses come under the broad UCMJ category of "serious offense", some are clearly more heinous than others.  A person in the military must abide by the standards set forth in the UCMJ, regardless of what guidelines his civilian counterparts might utilize.  An unauthorized absence in excess of 30 days is considered a "serious offenses" under the UCMJ.  The commission of any single "serious offense" supports a discharge under other than honorable conditions.  The Applicant's discharge was proper and equitable.  Relief denied.

Relevant and material facts stated in a court-martial specification are presumed by the NDRB to be established facts.  With respect to a discharge adjudged by a court-martial case, the action of the NDRB is restricted to upgrades based on clemency. (B, Part IV)   The Applicant's case was considered under the pertinent standards of equity to determine if any factors in this particular case merited clemency.  The NDRB found the Applicant’s service record devoid of any mitigating or extenuating factors sufficient to offset the seriousness of the offenses for which the discharge was awarded.  

The following is provided for the benefit of the Applicant.  Normally, to permit relief, the discharge or characterization of the Applicant's service had to be improper or inequitable.  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.  Relief denied.

The Applicant is reminded that the period of eligibility for a personal appearance hearing is 15 years from the date of discharge.  The application package must be submitted to the NDRB prior to the expiration of the 15 year period.  The Applicant can provide additional documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments 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 Present, 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 [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