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

Docket No. ND05-01289

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

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

ex-CSSA, USN
Docket No. ND05-01289

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20050728.  The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions) and the Narrative Reason for Separation be changed to “General 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 20060406.  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 by reason of misconduct due to commission of serious offense - absent without leave - 30 days or more.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

“I am requesting an upgrade in my discharge and re-entry code because I have realizes that my desertion of my ship and shipmates was extremely thoughtless, inconsiderate and stupid.  My grandmother and uncle where doing poorly health wise and I became very stressed to the point of not thinking of the consequences of my actions.  I have never been in any kind of trouble before and took pride in being a member of the Navy.  Having tried extremely hard to make Third class Petty Officer, I was looking forward to the added responsibility.  I consider my disappearance a one time only bad decision.  Since my discharge, I have been attempting to do everything within my power to rejoin the military to better my life and myself.  I have learned how to better handle my stress in more positive ways and have held down, been very dependable and gone above and beyond in my job as a government employee at the Everett base in Washington for MWR.  I have been told by a few recruiters that I would be a good candidate for enlistment considering my determination and otherwise good record if I could upgrade my RE code from a 4 to at least a 3.  I would very much like the chance to uphold my responsibility and commitment and prove that I can be as good a sailor as I know I can if given the chance.  Thank you for your time and consideration.”

Documentation

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

Statement of Performance from C.C. M_, CSCM SW/AW, USN, dtd July 11, 2005
Letter from EN2 A_ G_, dtd February 28, 2005
Letter of Appreciation from J_ M. C_, dtd June 27, 2005
Petty Officer Third Class Title Authorization Letter dtd, May 14, 2004

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive:  USNR (DEP)	20011120 – 20020219		COG
	Active:    None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  20020220		Date of Discharge:  20041112

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    02  08  23  (Does not exclude lost time.)
	Inactive:  None

Time Lost During This Period (days):

	Unauthorized absence:	142 days
	Confinement:			None

Age at Entry:  18 

Years Contracted:  4 (12 month extension)

Education Level:  12				AFQT:  52

Highest Rate:  CSSN

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, Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, Navy “E” Ribbon.

* Not Available

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-142.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events: 

040503:	Applicant to unauthorized absence at 0730 on 040503.

040602:	Applicant missed ship’s movement, this date.

040922:	Applicant from unauthorized absence at 1745 on 040922 (142 days/apprehended).

041021:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86:  In that Culinary Specialist Seaman M_ A. D_, U.S. Navy, Transient Personnel Unit Puget Sound, Naval Base Kitsap-Bangor, Silverdale, Washington, on active duty, did on or about 040503, without authority, absent herself from her unit, to wit: USS ABRAHAM LINCOLN (CVN 72), located at Naval Station Everett, Washington, and did remain so absent until she was apprehended on 040922.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $669.00 pay per month for 2 months, restriction for 60 days, reduction to E-2.  No indication of appeal in the record.

041021:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge by reason of misconduct commission of a serious offense.  Applicant notified that the least favorable characterization of service possible is under other than honorable conditions.

041021:	Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult with counsel, elected to waive all rights except the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation.

041027:	Commanding Officer, Transient Personnel Unit Puget Sound, recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct commission of a serious offense.  Commanding Officer’s comments:  “CSSA D_ (Applicant) was awarded Non-Judicial Punishment on 21 October 2004 for VUMCJ, Article 86, unauthorized absence.  She is only back in military control due to her apprehension.  She shows no potential for further naval service.  I recommend discharging her with an Other Than Honorable discharge.”

041027:	Separation Physical:  Applicant indicated she had been depressed aboard the ship between 2002-2003 and saw a psychologist for using a knife on herself.  [Extracted from Report of Medical History.]

041029:	Commander, Navy Region Northwest directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct commission of serious offense – absent without leave – 30 days or more.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20041112 by reason of misconduct due to commission of serious offense - absent without leave - 30 days or more (A and B) with a service characterization of under other than honorable conditions.  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).

Normally, to permit relief, an impropriety or inequity must have existed during the period of enlistment in question.  No such impropriety or inequity is evident during the Applicant’s enlistment.  When the service of a member of the U.S. Navy has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service as honorable.  An under other than honorable conditions discharge is warranted when a member's conduct involves one or more acts or omissions that constitute a significant departure from the conduct expected of members of the Naval Service.  The Applicant’s service was marred by a 142 day unauthorized absence that was terminated by apprehension and missing ship’s movement.  This misconduct resulted in nonjudicial punishment proceedings for violations of UCMJ Articles 86, unauthorized absence for a period in excess of 30 days.  Under applicable regulations, a violation of UCMJ Article 86 is considered a serious offense.  The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of her service, reflects her willful failure to meet the requirements of her contract with the U.S. Navy.  Such conduct falls far short of that expected of a member of the U.S. military and does not meet the requirements for an upgrade of her characterization of service.  Relief is not warranted.

The Applicant implies her disciplinary problems were partly the result of stress caused by family illnesses.  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 endure hardships similar to those of the Applicant.  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.

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 denied.

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.  The Applicant can provide documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments or any additional evidence related to this 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), re-issued October 2002, effective 22 Aug 02 until 25 April 05 Article 1910-142 [formerly 3630605]. SEPARATION BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT - COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE.

B.  The Manual for Courts-Martial authorizes the award of a punitive discharge if adjudged as part of the sentence upon conviction by a special or general court-martial for violation of the UCMJ, Article 86,  unauthorized absence in excess of 30 days.

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