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

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

ex-AMSAR, USN
Docket No. ND05-00937

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20050509.  The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable or general (under honorable conditions).  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 20051215.  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 of the discharge and reason for 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:

“The difficulties leading up to my discharge began by being placed in an rate that was inappropriate to my skills, abilities, or interest.  It was a poor match, which eventually led to poor performance reviews, and “distance” between myself and most of the men in my unit.  After a year working as an AMS at my permanent duty station I developed “depression”, for which I was assigned a psychiatric evaluation and offered medication.  I declined; but continued to have difficulty communicating or functioning in my role.  After being further disciplined, I just left.”

Documentation

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

Page from Security Clearance Application
Evaluation Report & Counseling Record (2 pgs)
United State Merchant Marine Officer License dtd March 19, 2002
Transcript from Maine Maritime Academy (2 pgs) 

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive:  USNR (DEP)	19970212 – 19971201		COG
	Active:    None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  19971202		Date of Discharge:  19990819

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    01  08  17  (Does Not Exclude Lost Time)
	Inactive:  None

Time Lost During This Period (days):

	Unauthorized absence:	
	Confinement:			None

Age at Entry:  21

Years Contracted:  4 

Education Level:  12				AFQT:  89

Highest Rate:  AMSAA

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  1.00 (1) 		Behavior:  1.00 (1) 		OTA:  1.33 

Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, (as listed on the DD Form 214):  None.

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: 

990528:	NJP:  No further information available.  [Extracted from Applicant’s supporting documentation.]

990615:	Applicant to unauthorized absence, 990615.

990708:	Applicant from unauthorized absence, 990708 (23 days).  [Extracted from DD Form 214.]

990819:	DD Form 214: Applicant discharged under other than honorable condition by reason of in lieu of trial by court-martial, per MILPERSMAN 1910-106.

Service Record did not contain the Administrative Discharge package.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19990819 in lieu of a trial by court-martial (A) 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 (B and C).  The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (D).

In the absence of a complete discharge package, the Board presumed that the Applicant requested an administrative discharge under other than honorable conditions in lieu of a trial by court-martial.  Therefore, the Board presumed the Applicant requested discharge to escape trial by court-martial, had the elements of the offense for which she was charged fully explained by counsel, that she was guilty of the offense and that she had a complete understanding of the negative consequences of her actions.  The evidence of record does not demonstrate that the Applicant was not responsible for her conduct or that she should not be held accountable for her actions.  Based on these presumptions and no evidence to the contrary, the Board concluded the Applicant’s discharge was proper and equitable.  Relief denied.

The Applicant contends that her misconduct was the result of “being placed in a rate that was inappropriate to [her] skills, abilities, or interests.”  The NDRB recognizes that serving in the U.S. Navy is challenging.  Our country is fortunate to have men and women willing to endure the hardships and sacrifices required in order to serve their country.  It must be noted that many members of the Navy serve in rates that might not be their ideal choice.  It must further be noted that the vast majority of those members do not commit misconduct as a result of their problems.  Despite their hardships, these sailors are still able to serve honorably and therefore earn their honorable discharges.  In fairness to those members of the Navy, commanders and separation authorities are tasked to ensure that undeserving Sailors receive no higher characterization than is due.  The NDRB found that the Applicant's service was equitably characterized.  Relief denied.

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 18, effective 
12 Dec 1997 until 10 July 2000, Article 1910-106 (formerly 3630650), SEPARATION IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT-MARTIAL.

B.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part V, Para 502, Propriety.

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

D.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part II, Para 211, Regularity of Government Affairs.  

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