Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00579
Original file (ND04-00579.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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


ex-SR, USNR
Docket No. ND04-00579

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20040225. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. 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. Subsequent to the application, the Applicant obtained representation from American Legion.

Decision

A personal appearance hearing discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20041026. 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/Separation in lieu of trial by court martial, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630650.




PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION


Issues, as stated

 Issues submitted by Applicant and Applicant’s representative (AMERICAN LEGION):
“1. (Equity Issue) This former member opines that personal and family problems contributed to and sufficiently mitigated his misconduct of record to warrant the Board’s relief.
2. (Equity Issue) This former member further requests that the Board consider provisions of SECNAVINST 5420.174C, enclosure (1), Chapter 9, as it pertains to post-service conduct, in assessing the merits of this application.
_______________________________________________________________________
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.

The American Legion’s express purpose in providing this statement, and any other submittals or evidence filed, is to assist this Applicant in the clarification and resolution of the impropriety or inequity raised. To that end, we rest assured that the NDRB’s final decision will reflect sound equitable principles consistent in law, regulation, policy and discretion as promulgated by title 10 U.S.C., section 1553 and set forth in 32 C.F.R., part 724 and SECNAVINST 5420.174C, enclosure (1).

This case is now respectfully submitted for deliberation and disposition.”

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Letter from Applicant
Letter from Applicant’s wife
 National Guard application (8 pages)
 Letter from H_ M_
Letter of recommendation from J_ M_
 Letter of recommendation from R_ J_
 Letter of recommendation from J_ T. M_
 Copy of Phoenix Award
 Copy of newspaper article
Copy of Certificate of recognition
 Copy of Fire Service Instructor certificate
 Copy of Emergency Medical certificate
Copy of National Fire Academy certificate
 Copy of Missouri Division of Fire Safety certificate (3 pages)
Copy of professional firefighter certification
Copy of student transcript (2 pages)
Copy of Police record check (3 pages)
Letter from Applicant requesting entry in to Missouri National Guard (2 pages)
Copy of June 2004 Robertson Report (4 pages)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive:        None
          Active:          None
Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 910228               Date of Discharge: 911204

 Length of Service (years, months, days):
         Active: 00 07 19
          Inactive: 00 00 03
Age at Entry: 18                          Years Contracted: 8

Education Level: 12 (GED)                          AFQT: 50
Highest Rate: SR

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):
Performance: NMA*        Behavior: NMA             OTA: 2.80

 Military Decorations: None
Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: None

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: 104

*No Marks Available
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 :

910716:  Report of Declaration of Deserter (NAVPERS 1600-3). Applicant declared a deserter on 910704 having been an unauthorized absentee since 0530, 910603 from NAVHOSPCORPSCOL Great Lakes, IL.
910722:  Report of Return of Deserter. Applicant surrendered NAVHOSPCORPSCOL Great Lakes, IL at (2223) 910721. Retained onboard for disciplinary action.
910813:  Summary Court-Martial.
         Charge I: violation of the UCMJ, Article 86.
          Specification: On or about 910603 without authority, did remain so absent until on or about 910721 (48days).
         Finding: to Charge I and the specification thereunder, guilty.
          Sentence: Forfeiture of $503.00 pay per month for 1 month, hard labor without confinement for 45 days, restriction to NHCS for 45 days.
          CA action 910813: Sentence approved and ordered executed.

 910926:  Report of Declaration of Deserter (NAVPERS 1600-3). Applicant declared a deserter on 910925 having been an unauthorized absentee since 0615, 910826 from NAVHOSPCORPSCOL Great Lakes, IL.

911029:  Report of Return of Deserter. Applicant apprehended by ST Louis Police Department 1445, 911021. Returned to military control NAVHOSPCORPSCOL Great Lakes, IL 1300, 911022. Retained onboard for disciplinary action.

911101:  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: Did on or about 910826, without authority, absent himself from his unit, to wit: NHCS, Great Lakes, IL, and did remain so absent until he was apprehended on or about 911021 (56 days). 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 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.

911108:  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 19911204 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).
Issues 1-2: On 19911101, 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. Normally, to permit relief, an error or injustice must have existed during the period of enlistment in question. No such error or injustice occurred during the Applicant’s enlistment. While he may feel that his youth and immaturity were contributing factors, they do not mitigate the Applicant’s disobedience of the orders and directives that regulate good order and discipline in the naval service, demonstrating he was unsuitable for further service. His service record is marred by award of non-judicial punishment (NJP) for violating the UCMJ, Article 86 and admission to violating the UCMJ, Article 86 on the second occasion in order to avoid trial by court-martial, thus substantiating the misconduct . The Applicant claims his family members back home were subject to physical abuse while he was serving the Navy. The Applicant states that he made a conscious decision to go UA in order to mitigate this abuse. However, the Applicant has not provided any independent documentation or evidence to substantiate his claims. The evidence of record does not demonstrate that the Applicant was not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions. 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 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. At this time, the Applicant has not provided sufficient verifiable documentation of good character and conduct to mitigate the severity of his misconduct that served as the reason for his discharge.

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. Neither a less than fully honorable discharge nor an unfavorable “RE” code is, in itself, a bar to reenlistment. A request for waiver is normally done only during the processing of a formal application for enlistment through a recruiter.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)
A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), effective 15 Aug 91 until
04 Mar 93, 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 | 1999_Navy | ND99-00995

    Original file (ND99-00995.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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).In response to applicant’s issue 1, a medical diagnosis on active duty or during post-service, and whether proper or improper, is not an issue upon which this Board can grant relief. The applicant

  • 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 | 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 | 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 | 1999_Navy | ND99-01234

    Original file (ND99-01234.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events : Discharge package missing from service record.970214: Applicant to unauthorized absence 0630, 14Feb97. No relief warranted based on this issue.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00049

    Original file (ND02-00049.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    My name is J_ J_ M_ (Applicant). Documentation Only service record was reviewed. PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: USN 000000 - 000000 HON Inactive: USNR (DEP) 000000 - 000000 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 970730 Date of Discharge: 980416 Length of Service (years, months, days):Active: 00 08 17 (Doesn't exclude lost time.)

  • 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 | 2001_Navy | ND01-01190

    Original file (ND01-01190.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-01190 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010920, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable and the reason for the discharge be changed to Hardship-RE-3. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 991216 under other than honorable conditions in lieu of a trial by court-martial (A). PART IV - INFORMATION FOR THE APPLICANT If you believe that the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01388

    Original file (ND03-01388.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-01388 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030820. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/ under honorable conditions. The Applicant’s service record provides clear evidence that the discharge authority directed discharge Under Other Than Honorable Conditions.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01325

    Original file (ND03-01325.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-01325 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030805. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to entry level separation or uncharacterized. Documentation Only the service and medical records were reviewed, as the Applicant did not provide additional documentation for the Board to consider.