Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00764
Original file (ND02-00764.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-RMSN, USN
Docket No. ND02-00764

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 020509, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. The Applicant requested a personal appearance hearing discharge review before the Board in the Washington National Capital Region. The Applicant listed Disabled American Veterans as his representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A personal appearance discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 021104. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, 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/Separation in lieu of trial by court martial, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630650.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as submitted
1. Post-Service Clemency.

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Letter from the Applicant and his wife, undated (4 pages)
California Department of Motor Vehicles Driving Record
Character Reference dated October 23, 2002 (2 pages)
Character Reference dated October 29, 2002 (2 pages)
Character Reference from employer dated October 30, 2002
Copy of TEMADD Travel Orders
Reference Letter from Dept of Veterans’ Service Director W_ H. D_
Reference Letter from President of Anza Valley Chamber of Commerce C_ F_
Character Reference dated March 30, 2002
Copy of DD Form 214

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: 830420               Date of Discharge: 881202

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 02 05 00
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 19                          Years Contracted: 4

Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 49

 Highest Rate: RMSN

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.60 (2)    Behavior: 3.45 (4)                OTA: 3.60

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: None

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: 1151

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Separation in lieu of trial by court martial, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630650.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

850216   Emergency Leave authorized for 30 days.

850531   Applicant to unauthorized absence.

850708:  Report of Declaration of Deserter (NAVPERS 1600-3). Applicant declared a deserter on 850702 having been an unauthorized absentee since 1700, 850531 from USS MOUNT VERNON (LSD-39).

850821   Applicant onboard NAVSTA Long Beach. USS MOUNT VERNON (LSD-39).

850822   Applicant to unauthorized absence from USS MOUNT VERNON (LSD-39). Intentions unknown.

850828:  Report of Declaration of Deserter (NAVPERS 1600-3). Applicant declared a deserter on 850822 having been an unauthorized absentee since 0730, 850822 from USS MOUNT VERNON (LSD-39).

850920   Declared a deserter this date.

861015   Applicant’s records and personnel effects transferred this date.

881018:  Report of Return of Deserter. Applicant apprehended by civil authorities on 881018 (0420) at Lake Elsinore, CA. Returned to military control 881018 (0500). Delivered to NAVSTA Long Beach TEMDU for disciplinary action.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 881202 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, 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. 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 the service. However, the NDRB is authorized to consider outstanding post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge, to the extent that such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the Applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review. The Applicant chose to be discharged under other than honorable conditions, after a period of unauthorized absence in excess of 1100 days, vice accepting court martial proceedings. The Applicant’s conduct, which formed the basis for determining the character of his service, reflected his disobedience of the orders and directives, which regulate good order and discipline in the naval service. While the NDRB is sympathetic to the circumstances surrounding the Applicant’s decision to absent himself from the Navy, and respects the post-service life choices made by the Applicant, after a complete review of the entire record, including the documentation submitted by the Applicant, the Board determined that his discharge was appropriate and that his evidence of post-service conduct does not mitigate the seriousness of the offense for which he was discharged. Relief denied.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560A), effective 15 Jun 87 until 24 May 89, 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 | 2003_Navy | ND03-01264

    Original file (ND03-01264.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 910412, the USNMCMR affirmed the SPCM decision and he was separated with a Bad Conduct discharge due to conviction by special court martial as authorized by NAVMILPERSMAN, Art. 910412: NMCCMR: The findings of guilty and sentence, as approved on review, are affirmed.911010: SSPCMO: Article 71c, UCMJ, having been complied with, Bad Conduct discharge ordered executed. At this time, the Applicant has not provided sufficient documentation for the Board to consider an upgrade.The Applicantis...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00107

    Original file (ND03-00107.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-00107 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 20021023, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. The fact that his unauthorized absence was less than 180 days does not provide a basis under which the Board may grant relief. Verifiable proof of any post-service accomplishments must be provided in order for the Applicant to claim post-service conduct and behavior as a reason to upgrade a...

  • 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 | 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 | 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 | 2003_Navy | ND03-00033

    Original file (ND03-00033.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    980407: DD Form 214: Applicant discharged under other than honorable conditions in lieu of a trial by court-martial, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-106. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 19980407 under other than honorable conditions in lieu of a trial by court-martial (A and B). After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01193

    Original file (ND02-01193.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-01193 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020821, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. Very Respectfully, (Signed by Applicant) Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant's letter to the Board, undated Copy of DD Form 214 Puerto Rico Police Record, dated 29 July 2002 PART II -...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00483

    Original file (ND99-00483.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Decision A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 991213. 840719: NMCCMR: The findings of guilty and sentence, as approved on review, are affirmed.850104: SSPCMO: Article 71c, UCMJ, having been complied with, Bad Conduct discharge ordered executed. 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).The applicant introduced no decisional...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01196

    Original file (ND99-01196.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, NDRB discerned no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the applicant’s service. 841214: SSPCMO: Article 71c, UCMJ, having been complied with, Bad Conduct discharge ordered executed. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 850110 with a bad conduct due to convicted by a special court martial (A).

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01142

    Original file (ND03-01142.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-01142 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030618. The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review. 910511: Applicant apprehended by civilian authorities at 1920, 910511 and returned to military control 1953, 910511 (292 days/apprehended).910702: DD Form 214: Applicant discharged under other than honorable conditions in lieu of a trial by court-martial, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630650.