Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00605
Original file (ND99-00605.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-BMSN, USN
Docket No. ND99-00605

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 990329, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. The applicant requested a documentary record discharge 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 000104. After a thorough review of the records, 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 3630650.



PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

 Prior to the documentary discharge review, the applicant introduced no issues as block 8 on the DD Form 293 is blank.

Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
None

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: USN                        None
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 840831               Date of Discharge: 960510

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 04 10 23
         Inactive: 00 04 15

 Age at Entry: 20                          Years Contracted: 8

Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 28

 Highest Rate: BM3

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.64 (5)    Behavior: 3.20 (5)                OTA: 3.68

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM, SSDR

Days of Unauthorized Absence: 2757

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 3630650.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

850115:  Ordered to active duty for 36 months under the Active Mariner program.

 880630:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 112a: Wrongful use of a controlled substance.
         Award: Forfeiture of $425.00 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to E-3. No indication of appeal in the record.

880829:  Report of Declaration of Deserter (NAVPERS 1600-3). Applicant declared a deserter on 880928 having been an unauthorized absentee since 0700, 880828 from USS SHASTA (AE-33).

881113:  Applicant was apprehended by civil authorities and returned to military control at NAS Alameda on 2130, 881113.

881201:  Report of Declaration of Deserter (NAVPERS 1600-3). Applicant declared a deserter on 881130 having been an unauthorized absentee since 0630, 881128 from USS SHASTA (AE-33).

960403:  Report of Return of Deserter. Applicant surrendered to military control on 1810, 960402 at TPU TI. Returned to military control on 1810, 960402. Retained onboard TPU TI pending DISPLACT/DISPO.

960429:  Charges preferred to special court-martial for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) Article 86:
         Unauthorized absence (UA) (2 specs) from 880828 to 8811113 [77days/A], and 881128 to 960402 [2680days/S].

960506:  A pplicant requested an administrative discharge under other than honorable conditions in lieu of a trail 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 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 (2 specs), without authority, absent himself from his unit 880828 to 881113 [77days/A], and 881128 to 960402 [2680days/A]. 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 her/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.

960508:  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 960510 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, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (D and E).

The applicant introduced no decisional issues for consideration by the Board.

 Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 9, effective
22 Jul 94 until 2 Oct 96, Article 3630650, PROCEDURES FOR PROCESSING ENLISTED PERSONNEL FOR SEPARATION IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURTMARTIAL.

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 obtain a copy of DoD Directive 1332.28 by writing to:
                  DA Military Review Boards Agency
                  Management Information and Support Directorate
                  Armed Forces Reading Room
                  Washington, D.C. 20310-1809

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
                  Washington Navy Yard
                  720 Kennon St SE Rm 309
                  Washington, D.C. 20374-5023     


Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00204

    Original file (ND00-00204.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION After a thorough review of the records, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (D and E).In response to applicant’s issue 1, the Board found that, according to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 86, an unauthorized absence for a period more than 30 days may be subject to a bad conduct discharge if the applicant is convicted at a Special or General Court-Martial. The...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00087

    Original file (ND00-00087.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 introduced no decisional issues for consideration by the Board. 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,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00764

    Original file (ND02-00764.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT ex-RMSN, USN Docket No. 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).Issue 1: The Applicant requests post-service clemency. You should read Enclosure (5) of the Directive before submitting such a complaint.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00216

    Original file (ND03-00216.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-00216 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 20021121, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. he Applicant’s service was marred by two non-judicial punishments (NJP) and was declared a deserter on 19930429 and returned to military control by civil authorities on 19940930. The Applicant’s counsel also requests that the Board consider the Applicant’s service in a combat zone.The Board...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00058

    Original file (ND04-00058.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    _______________________________________________________________________ In accordance with 32 C.F.R., section 724.166, and SECNAVINST 5420.174C, enclosure (1), paragraph 1.16, The American Legion submits to the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB or Board) the above issue and following statement in supplement to the Applicant’s petition.The service record is incomplete. 951004: Applicant discharged There is no law or regulation, which provides that an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00330

    Original file (ND02-00330.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00330 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020129, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. The VA determines eligibility for post-service benefits not the Navy Discharge Review Board. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00274

    Original file (ND00-00274.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND00-00274 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 991221, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. 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 Board found that the applicant went UA from RTC...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00579

    Original file (ND04-00579.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND04-00579 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20040225. _______________________________________________________________________ In accordance with 32 C.F.R., section 724.166; SECNAVINST 5420.174C, enclosure (1), paragraph 1.16, The American Legion submits to the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB or Board) the above issue in supplement to the Applicant’s petition. Specifically, he admitted to violating UCMJ, Article: 86: Did on or about 910826, without...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00623

    Original file (ND01-00623.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 Board considered the applicant’s issue (letter) describing the circumstances surrounding his misconduct. The applicant can provide additional documentation to support his issues at that time. PART IV - INFORMATION FOR THE APPLICANT If you believe that the decision in your case is unclear, not responsive to the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00335

    Original file (ND02-00335.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Recommendation for Disposition from Discipline Officer, TPU, Norfolk PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: USN None Inactive: USNR (DEP) 970115 - 970128 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 970129 Date of Discharge:...