Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00377
Original file (ND03-00377.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-SA, USN
Docket No. ND03-00377

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20030109. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions and reason for discharge changed to RE-3. The Applicant requests a personal appearance hearing discharge review before the Board in the Washington National Capital Region. The Applicant did not list any representative on the DD Form 293. In the acknowledgement letter, the applicant was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20031205. 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 shall not change. The discharge shall remain: UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT MARTIAL, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-106 (formerly 3630650).

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

 Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

“1. I would like my current re entry code (re-4) to be changed to re-3 so I can reenter the military.”
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):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     991214 - 000112  COG
         Active: USN                        None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 000113               Date of Discharge: 000622

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 00 03 28
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 18                          Years Contracted: 4 (24 months extension)

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 66

 Highest Rate: SA

 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: 53

 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 1910-106 (formerly 3630650).

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

000404:  UA from SSC GLAKES IL since 0600, 000404.

 000526:  Apprehended by civilian authority at Salisbury, MD at 1848, 000526. Returned to military control at MACIC GLAKES IL at 1945, 000526. Transferred to TPU GLAKES for disciplinary action/disposition.
000606:  Applicant requested an administrative discharge under other than honorable conditions in lieu of a trial 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(s) 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. The Applicant understood that if discharged under other than honorable conditions, it might deprive 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.
000608:  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 20000622 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: On 20000606, the Applicant requested discharge for the good of the service to escape trial by court-martial. In the request the Applicant noted that his counsel had fully explained the elements of the offenses for which he was charged and that he was guilty of the offenses. He further certified a complete understanding of the negative consequences of his actions and that characterization of service could be under other than honorable conditions. The record is void of evidence that the Applicant was not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions. Relief denied.

Concerning a change in reenlistment code, the NDRB has no authority to change reenlistment codes or make recommendations to permit reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Naval Service or any other branch of the Armed Forces. However, 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.

 T here 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. 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 less than honorable discharge. Evidence of continuing educational pursuits, a positive employment record, and certification of community service and non-involvement with civil authorities are examples of verifiable proof that can be submitted.

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 additional documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments at that time. 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. 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 | ND03-00908

    Original file (ND03-00908.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-00908 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030502. The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review. 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 less than honorable discharge.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00076

    Original file (ND02-00076.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT ex-SR, USN Docket No. The applicant can provide additional documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments at that time. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00011

    Original file (ND02-00011.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00011 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010925, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable and the reason for the discharge be changed to self-requested. 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:...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00136

    Original file (ND01-00136.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00136 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 001113, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Letter from Veterans of Foreign Wars Copy of DD Form 214 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: USN None Inactive: USNR...

  • 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 | 2003_Navy | ND03-00312

    Original file (ND03-00312.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-00312 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20021211. The Applicant requests that the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to entry level separation or uncharacterized. , The sacrifice was for their well being NY mine The Navy could not be called upon to represent my wife, Whom were Not actually my wife at that time.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00692

    Original file (ND03-00692.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Documentation In addition to the service record, NO DISCHARGE PACKAGE AVAILABLE, 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) 990514 - 990527 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 990528...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00804

    Original file (ND03-00804.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-00804 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030402. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. 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.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00932

    Original file (ND02-00932.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00932 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020618, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions) and the reason for the discharge be changed to Re code. The Applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. At this time, the Applicant has not provided such documentation for the Board to consider an upgrade.The Applicantis reminded that he remains eligible for a personal...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00683

    Original file (ND03-00683.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. In the absence of the Applicant’s request for separation in lieu of court martial, the Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs and the Board found the discharge and characterization of service proper and equitable. The names, and votes of the members of the Board are recorded on the original of this document and may be obtained...