Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00204
Original file (ND00-00204.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-SR, USN
Docket No. ND00-00204

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 991129, 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 000803. 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 (verbatim)

 1. I believe that the U.S. Navy handled my AWOL in a manner much harsher than was necessary. I believe that given that I was on active duty , minus my bad times, less than 180 days I should have been offered an Entry Level Separation. At the minimum I should have been given a general discharge. I did nothing to warrant an Under Other Than Honorable.

2. I discussed my intentions to go AWOL with my instructor in SM school, the Base Chaplain, and Mental Health Clinic, as well as my OIC. I made my intention very clear. No one tried to do anything to help me. They warned me about the consequences but didn't try to stop me.

3. I was under contract to be a Signalman. I discovered my job was being eliminated at the end of the course. No one could tell me what I would be doing as a nondesignated Fleet member. I was totally discouraged and felt I had no choice but to leave.


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)     961121 - 970121  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 970122               Date of Discharge: 970819

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 00 04 12
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 19                          Years Contracted: 4

Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 54

 Highest Rate: SR

 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: 77

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 :

970502:  To UA.

970602:  Report of Declaration of Deserter (NAVPERS 1600-3). Applicant declared a deserter on 970602 having been an unauthorized absentee since 0600, 970502 from SSC GREAT LAKES, IL.

970718:  From UA [77days/A].

970721:  Report of Return of Deserter. Applicant apprehended by civil authorities on 970718 (1650) at BROWNSTOWN, MI. Returned to military control 970718 (1705). Transferred to TPU GREAT LAKES, IL at 1735, 970722. Retained onboard for disciplinary action.


 No Discharge Package Available
PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT
REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 970819 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).

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 applicant was on unauthorized absence for 77 days and declared a deserter before being apprehended by civil authorities and returned to military control. The applicant then requested separation in lieu of trial by court-martial. Relief will not be granted on this issue.

 In response to applicant’s issues 2 and 3, t o permit relief, an error or injustice must be found to have existed during the period of enlistment under review. There was nothing in the records, nor did the applicant provide any documentation, to indicate there existed an error of fact, law, procedure, or discretion at the time of discharge. There was no rights violation and no basis for relief.
Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 14, effective
03 Oct 96 until 11 Dec 97, 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 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 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      


Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00364

    Original file (ND01-00364.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I really liked the service. 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’s issue #1 states that an unplanned pregnancy and youth and immaturity were his reasons for desertion. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00867

    Original file (ND01-00867.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Thank you for your time and consideration, Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: None Inactive: USNR (DEP) 960723 - 961209 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 961210 Date of Discharge: 970807 Length of Service (years, months, days):Active: 00 07 28 Inactive:...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01233

    Original file (ND99-01233.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).In the applicant’s issues 1 through 4, there is no law or regulation that provides for the upgrade of an unfavorable discharge based solely on the passage of time, or good conduct in the civilian life subsequent to leaving the Service. In the applicant’s issue 5, the Board did not find any enlisted performance mark...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00478

    Original file (ND02-00478.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00478 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020305, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. (DAV Issue) After a review of the Former Service Members (FSM) DD Form 293 Application for the Naval Discharge Review Board of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States and all of the evidence assembled for review, we continue to support the contentions as set forth by...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00643

    Original file (ND04-00643.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND04-00643 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20040309. The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review. A_ C_ (Applicant).”

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01470

    Original file (ND03-01470.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-01470 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030911. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00119

    Original file (ND04-00119.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND04-00119 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20031027. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :020304: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (5 Specifications): Failed to go to appointed place of duty, to wit: Restricted muster.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00531

    Original file (ND00-00531.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT ex-FR, USN Docket No. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION 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

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00098

    Original file (ND04-00098.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND04-00098 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20031017. 910122: 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. A member may be separated in lieu of trial by courtmartial upon the member's request if the charges have been preferred with respect to an offense for which a punitive discharge is authorized in the Maximum Punishment...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00433

    Original file (ND04-00433.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable or general/under honorable conditions. As of this time, the Applicant has not provided any documentation for the Board to consider. The Applicant is informed that there is no law or regulation that grants recharacterization solely on the issue of obtaining Veterans' benefits and this issue does not serve to provide a foundation upon which the Board can grant relief.