Author: CAP
Last saved by: shirley.robertson
Company: NCPB

Docket No. ND03-01163

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

ex-AR, USN
Docket No. ND03-01163

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20030626.  The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable or general under honorable conditions or entry level separation or uncharacterized and the reason for the discharge be changed to re-enlist.  The Applicant requests a documentary record review.  The Applicant did not list any representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20040504.  After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the Applicant’s service was discovered by the NDRB.  The Board’s vote was unanimous that the character and narrative reason of the discharge shall not change.  The discharge shall remain: UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-142 (formerly 3630605).

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

“1.  To whom it may concern, (Commanding officer)
 Obviously I am requesting of an overview of my discharge and RE status.  I was a recruit going through basic training at Great Lakes starting at Oct of 1998.  Unfortunately after the 3^rd week I was notified of a life threating and serious news regarding my one and only father.  News as diagnosed with cancer of the stomach, in where they found 3 tumors.  Sir, I properly and respectfully when through the change of command as instructed too to get a temporary leave through hardship and moral obligations to my family.  However after doing so, I was shot down from all angles. I’m admittingly and regretfully, I elected to go (UA) which turned into Desertion.  To humbly and intelligently know it was wrong, but also had a moral and decent responsibility for my family, Sir, to stick by my father side as he went threw surgery, radiation and chemo therapy.  And after weighing out the consequnces chose to be at my only fathers call of duty.  Now if I was already in the Navy and assigned  somewhere my action would have been totally different anyway but I was in bootcamp.  Any I honorably turned myself in paying my own way from Miami to Chicago, after being held at separation for a while until I went to Captain’s Mast which was conducted by the XO of RTC Commander W_.  I was fined 2 weeks pay and confined to the base.  I was also asked by the XO at mast if I wanted to stay in the Navy, and replied yes.  Commander W_ (XO) assured me that I would be reassigned to a new division and start all over again.  For whatever reason that never happened, what happened was I was discharge very fast and suspiciously to my thinking and was given and other than honorable condition discharge.  What was an amazement to me why being that I was still in the early part of basic training and by the UCMJ should have received and entry level discharge or General discharge since I did not graduate from Basic Training.  Sir , with all do respect even though I admit what I did was wrong ethicly, if you were in my shoes and was only attending boot camp and is assigned or station at a crucial area in the world, with greater responsibilities.  I do only have one father and no one else around to help him through radiation, or chemotherapy and some one to take care of 24 hour a day.  Believe me Sir the navy would have been an easier option and easier to make an excuse to my family and father of why I couldn’t be there.  The bottom line is that I respectfully request a change in my status of my discharge of other than honorable conditions and a RE-4 so I can live out my dream and goal and reenlist in the Navy.  The problem I do have Sir is that I am 33 years old and and the clock is ticking for my age wise to reenlist Sir.  I had excellent scores on my asvab and had any choice for an enlisted man as to what job (rate) that I wanted.  At that time I chose to be an Avionics Technician.  However, I was uninformed by my recruiter was that I had 2 year of college under my belt and could enlist to become a Chief warrant officer.  My dreams since I was 12 was to be a pilot, any type of Pilot.  Even a helicopter pilot.  And all these thing were not told to me it could come if I was a cargo pilot.  Sir, I just feel I didn’t deserve the type of discharge I was given especially give the fact that I was in Boot Camp and people who where doing drugs or get caught through and urinalysis received discharges such as entry level, general discharge, Captain H_ the Commanding officer at RTC at Great Lakes wrote a letter stating I was not useful or [unreadable] to the Navy.  With all do respect Sir I had never ever met Captain H_ or for him to judge me in that way was totally out of line and dishonorable.  Especially, that in my division I was the master at arms and starboard watch leader.  Sir, the time is running out on me because of my age and if there is anyway that this process can be sped up without the red tape that the govt. is so famous of.  I am begging you Sir and respectfully requesting with all your power to change my RE4 Code so that I can reenlist into the Navy.  And if this is a problem I would even consider enlisting in the army if I had no other options.  This has been a dream of mine my whole life and would be a 5^th generation to follow in their footsteps.  I have no criminal background and have been a model citizen my entire life, also 2 yrs of college if that would help or benefit me or you, because honestly Sir being some sort of pilot would fulfill a childhood dream since the age of 12 years old.  And even if this was not possible Sir I still would have the same enthusiasm to be a United States Sailor or an United States soldier.  I know you are probably thinking (33 year old) a late bloomer with 110% confidence, courage, commitment and dedication that has no boundaries Sir.  You are my last hope and chance and looking up to you Sir for leadership and guidance.”

Documentation

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

Copy of Driver’s License
Letter from Applicant
Copy of DD Form 214

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive:  USNR(DEP)		980817 - 981027	COG
	Active:    USN 			None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  981028		Date of Discharge:  990608

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    00  03  25  (Does not include lost time)
	Inactive:  00  00  00

Age at Entry:  28			Years Contracted:  4 

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  63

Highest Rate:  AR

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  NMA*		Behavior:  NMA		OTA:  NMA

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  None

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  106

*No Marks Available for review

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-142 (formerly 3630605).  
[Note BUPERSINST 1900.8 list the authority as 3630600 instead of 3630605]

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

990122:	Report of Declaration of Deserter (NAVPERS 1600-3).  Applicant declared a deserter on 990108 having been an unauthorized absentee since 1900, 981208 from NAVCRUITRACOM GREAT LAKES, IL.

990512:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence from 981208 until on or about 990324.
Award: Forfeiture of $223.00 pay per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duty for 14 days.  No indication of appeal in the record.

990527:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense as evidenced by OIC’s NJP of 990512.

990527:	Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights except the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation 

990601:	Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense as evidenced by OIC’s NJP of 990512.

990603:	Commander, Naval Training Center, Great Lakes authorized the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19990608 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense (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).

Issue 1.  A characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions is warranted when the member's conduct constitutes a significant departure from that expected of a sailor.  The Applicant’s service was marred by award of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for the commission of a serious offense.  No other narrative reason more clearly describes the circumstances surrounding the Applicant’s processing for administrative separation.
The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflects his disobedience of the orders and directives which regulate good order and discipline in the naval service, and falls short of that required for an honorable or under honorable (general) characterization of service.  The evidence of record does not demonstrate that the Applicant was not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions.  Relief denied.

Concerning a change in reenlistment code, the NDRB has no authority to change reenlistment codes or make recommendations to permit reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Naval Service or any other branch of the Armed Forces.  Neither a less than fully honorable discharge nor an unfavorable “RE” code is, in itself, a bar to reenlistment.  A request for waiver is normally done only during the processing of a formal application for enlistment through a recruiter.  

The Applicant’s discharge characterization accurately reflects his service to his country.  Normally, to permit relief, an error or inequity must have existed during the period of enlistment in question.  No such error or inequity is evident 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.  Relief not warranted.

The Applicant 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.  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 18, effective 
12 Dec 97 until 29 Mar 00, Article 1910-142  [formerly 3630605]. SEPARATION BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT - COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE.

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 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: