Author: CAP
Last saved by: joyce.meeks
Company: NCPB

Docket No. ND05-00935

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

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

 ex-FR, USN
Docket No. ND05-00935

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20050510.  The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable and the Narrative Reason for Separation be changed to “RE-Code.”  The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review.  The Applicant did not designate a representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20050915.  After a thorough review of the available 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 of the discharge shall not change.  The discharge shall remain Under Other Than Honorable Conditions in lieu of a trial by court-martial.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application and attached document/letter:

“to gain re-entry into the service.”

“Dear DRB:

The following issues are the reasons I believe my reenlistment code should be upgraded.  If you disagree please explain in detail why you disagree.
My ability to serve was impaired by youth and immaturity.  When I went to boot camp I went in with a childish mind thinking no one could tell me what to do, which opened doors for problems for me.  It got to the point when my RDC told me I can pack my stuff and leave and with me being so young minded I did just that.  At that point and time I didn’t think anything of it, but now I know that was the biggest mistake of my life and I wish I wouldn’t have done that.  I know that if I had to do it all over again I would do it right.  I know this because I have had a lot of time to grow and think about the things I have done.  Which brings me to the reason for this letter I know sometime there are no second chances, but when I found out there was a possibility I could get my reenlistment code upgraded I knew I had to try and this could be my second chance.  But don’t get me wrong I am not saying that I shouldn’t have been punished.  I just want a second chance I know I will be one of the best, because of the mistakes I have made and learned from.  If I do get my reenlistment code upgraded my plans are to go straight back to the military and make a career out of it.  I thank you for taken the time out to read my letters.  Please consider given me an upgrade so I could return to the military.

[signed] (Applicant)”

Documentation

Only the service record was reviewed.  The Applicant did not provide additional documentation for the Board’s consideration.

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive:  USNR (DEP)	20010103 - 20010624		COG
	Active:    None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  20010625		Date of Discharge:  20020823

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    00  03  04
	Inactive:  None

Time Lost During This Period (days):

	Unauthorized absence:  326 days
	Confinement:		  None

Age at Entry:  19

Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12				AFQT:  42

Highest Rate:  FR

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  NA*			Behavior:  NA*		OTA:  NA*

Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, (as listed on the DD Form 214):  National Defense Service Medal

* Not Available

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT MARTIAL, authority:  MILPERSMAN, Article 1910-106 (formerly 3630650).

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events: 

010906:	Retention Warning:  Advised of deficiency (unauthorized absence), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies and issued discharge warning.

010906:	Applicant to unauthorized absence at 2200 on 010906.

020725:	Applicant apprehended at Beaumont, TX at 1015, 020725.

020730:	Applicant returned to military control at 0745 on 020730 (326 days/apprehended).

020805:	Charges preferred for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) Article 86:  In that Firearm Recruit S_ J. J_, U. S. Navy, Transient Personnel Unit, Great Lakes, IL, on active duty, did, on or about 2200, 06 September 2001 without authority, absent himself from his organization, to wit: Recruit Training Command, located at Great Lakes, IL, and did remain so absent until on or about 0745, 30 July 2002.

020805:	Applicant requested an administrative discharge in lieu of a trial by court-martial.  He waived right to consult with counsel.  The Applicant stated he understood the elements of the offense with which he was charged, and admitted he was guilty of the charges preferred against him.  Specifically, he admitted to violating UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence from 2200, 010906 until 0745, 020730.  The Applicant understood that if discharged under other than honorable conditions, it might deprive him of virtually all veteran’s 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.

020808:	Commanding Officer, Transient Personnel Unit, 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 20020823 in lieu of a trial by court-martial (A and B) with a service characterization of under other than honorable conditions.  After a thorough review of the available records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (C and D).  

In a signed statement, the Applicant requested an administrative discharge in lieu of a trial by court-martial.  The Applicant understood that if discharged under other than honorable conditions, it might deprive him of virtually all veteran’s 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.  The Applicant stated he understood the elements of the offenses with which he was charged.  He admitted he was guilty of violating Article 86 for unauthorized absence from 2200, 20010906 until 0745, 20020730, a serious offense, which was ended by the Applicant’s apprehension.  Separation under these conditions generally results in characterization of service under other than honorable conditions.  Relief denied.

The Applicant contends that his ability to serve was impaired by his youth and immaturity.  While he may feel that his immaturity was the underlying cause of his misconduct, the record clearly reflects his willful misconduct and demonstrated he was unfit for further service.  The evidence of record did not show that the Applicant was either not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions.  Relief denied.

Normally, to permit relief, a procedural impropriety or inequity must have occurred during the discharge process for the period of enlistment in question.  The Board discovered no impropriety after a review of Applicant’s case.  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 Naval service.  The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the Applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review.  Examples of documentation that should be provided to the Board include proof of educational pursuits, verifiable employment records, documentation of community service and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities.  As of this time, the Applicant has not provided any post-service documentation for the Board to consider.  Relief is not warranted.

Regarding reenlistment and an “RE” code change: Since the NDRB has no jurisdiction over reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Navy, Marine Corps, or any other of the Armed Forces, NDRB is not authorized to change a reenlistment code.  An unfavorable “RE” code is, in itself, not a bar to reenlistment.  A request for a waiver can be submitted during the processing of a formal application for reenlistment through a recruiter.  Only the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) can make changes to reenlistment codes.

The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of 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 29, effective 
11 Jul 2000 until 21 Aug 2002, 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 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 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part V, Para 502, Propriety.

D.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part V, Para 503, Equity.

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 “http://Boards.law.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:

		Secretary of the Navy Council of Review 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 6 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.