Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501373
Original file (ND0501373.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB)
 DISCHARGE REVIEW
DECISIONAL DOCUMENT
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

ex-AA, USN
Docket No. ND05-01373

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20050818. The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review. The Applicant did not designate a representative on the DD Form 293. Subsequent to the application, the Applicant obtained representation from the American Legion.

 Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20060420. 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 and reason for discharge shall not change. The discharge shall remain Under Other Than Honorable Conditions in lieu of a trial by court-martial .
PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

 Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application and/or attached document/letter:

“I feel that after serving 1 year and not getting into any trouble or problems, I should get an up-grade to my discharge. I was a good Sailor and a asset to my crew and unit.

 Request for discharge upgrade

Prior to enlisting into the United States armed services, I was an active public servant in my community.

I served as a volunteer firefighter, a public safety officer, and a volunteer crewmember aboard the decommissioned battleship U.S.S. New Jersey. My commitment took me a step further and I enlisted in the U.S Navy.

Unfortunately for me, I prematurely chose the wrong time in my life to make such a commitment. For me, joining the navy is one of my greatest accomplishments in life. However, my actions, which lead to my other than honorable discharge, continue to haunt me on a daily basis. With less one year of active duty, I went absent without leave.

It was not an easy decision for me, to go AWOL, but when faced with extenuating personal circumstances, and without taking into consideration my career, I unintentionately violated military laws.

My problems stem from when I returned home on leave to resolve personal matters, and I found my household in diary. The electric was days from being shut off, eviction notices where on the table, and my wife was pregnant with my first child. These circumstances lead to my decision to stay home and postpone my career in the military. At the point when everything had been settled, I was afraid to return because I knew I’d be facing brig time.

If I had known that my pay would have commenced upon my return, I definitely would have turned myself in allot sooner. Instead I worked two jobs to get ahead of bills, and then I eventually purchased a one-way bus ticket to Naval Station Norfolk where I surrendered to military authorities.

During my absence I felt a constant guilt and disappointment in myself. I began volunteering aboard the U.S.S New Jersey again. This action helped me stay familiar with the naval terms, cisterns, and standards.
When I returned to duty in March of 2003,the weight on my shoulders was allot lighter. I felt like a new beginning was on the horizon, and I was ready and more than willing to continue serving in the navy.

However, I had been absent for at least a year and I was deemed a deserter. My previous actions had disqualified me from further duty, and I was eventually discharged May 27, 2003.

Since my discharge I’ve continued to balance my personal life. I’ve also persuaded two other family members to enlist into the military. Through my direction one family member is currently serving his second year in the navy as an MA, and the other is in the U.S Air force.

I’m seeking a fresh start, a second chance at a military career. I respectfully request an upgrade in my discharge code so that I may continue. Resigning into the military will help me to continue functioning as a productive citizen.
Thank You,
D_ A. N_(Applicant)
[signed]”

 Representative submitted no issues.
Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Applicant’s DD Form 214
VA Form 21-22, Appointment of Veterans Service Organization as claimant’s representative, dtd October 18, 2005
Applicant’s Service Record Documents (12 pages)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     20010413 - 20010514      COG
          Active: None
Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 20010515             Date of Discharge: 20030530

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 02 00 15 (Does not exclude lost time.)
         Inactive: None

 Time Lost During This Period (days):
         Unauthorized absence:    605 days
         Confinement:                       None

 Age at Entry: 25

 Years Contracted: 4 (12 month extension)

 Education Level: 12                                 AFQT: 46

 Highest Rate: AA

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: NA*                                    Behavior: NA*             OTA: NA*

 Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, (as listed on the DD Form 214): National Defense Service Medal
* Not Available


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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/ IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT MARTIAL, authority: MILPERSMAN, Article 1910-106 (formerly 3630650).

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

010812:  Applicant to unauthorized absence at 0001 on 010812. [Extracted from supporting documents provided by the Applicant.]

011028:  Applicant from unauthorized absence at 0854 on 011028 (76 days/apprehended). EAOS changed to 070109. [Extracted from supporting documents provided by the Applicant.]

011102:  Applicant to unauthorized absence at 0001 on 011102. [Extracted from supporting documents provided by the Applicant.]

030414:  Applicant from unauthorized absence at 2330 on 030414 (528 days/surrendered). EAOS changed to 061024. [Extracted from supporting documents provided by the Applicant.]

030527:  Charges preferred for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) Article 86: Specification 1: In that Airman Apprentice D_ A. N_(Applicant), U.S. Navy, Transient Personnel Unit Norfolk, Virginia, on active duty, did, on or about 12 August 2001, without authority, absent himself from his organization to wit: Recruit Training Command, located at Great Lakes, Illinois, and did remain so absent until he was apprehended on or about 28 October 2001. Specification 2: In that Airman Apprentice D_ A. N_(Applicant), U.S. Navy, Transient Personnel Unit Norfolk, Virginia, on active duty, did, on or about 2 November 2001, without authority, absent himself from his organization to wit: Recruit Training Command, located at Great Lakes, Illinois, and did remain so absent until on or about 14 April 2003 . [Extracted from supporting documents provided by the Applicant.]

030527:  Applicant requested an administrative discharge under other than honorable conditions in lieu of a trial by court-martial. He waived his right to consult with counsel. The Applicant stated he understood the elements of the offenses 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: Specification 1: In that Airman Apprentice D_ A. N_(Applicant), U.S. Navy, Transient Personnel Unit Norfolk, Virginia, on active duty, did, on or about 12 August 2001, without authority, absent himself from his organization to wit: Recruit Training Command, located at Great Lakes, Illinois, and did remain so absent until he was apprehended on or about 28 October 2001. Specification 2: In that Airman Apprentice D_ A. N_(Applicant), U.S. Navy, Transient Personnel Unit Norfolk, Virginia, on active duty, did, on or about 2 November 2001, without authority, absent himself from his organization to wit: Recruit Training Command, located at Great Lakes, Illinois, and did remain so absent until on or about 14 April 2003. 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. [Extracted from supporting documents provided by the Applicant.]

030527:  The Commanding Officer, Transient Personnel Unit, Norfolk, approved the request for an administrative separation in lieu of a trial by court-martial, and directed Applicant’s discharge. [Extracted from supporting documents provided by the Applicant.]

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion
The Applicant was discharged on 20030530 in lieu of a trial by court-martial (A and B) with a service characterization of under other than honorable conditions. 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).

In a signed statement, the Applicant requested an administrative discharge under other than honorable conditions in lieu of a trial by court-martial. The Applicant waived his right to consult with counsel. 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. The Applicant stated he understood the elements of the offenses with which he was charged. He admitted he was guilty of violating Article 86: unauthorized absence from 010812 to 011028, a period of 76 days, and unauthorized absence from 011102 to 030414, a period of 528 days. The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflects his willful failure to meet the requirements of his contract with the U.S. Navy. Such conduct falls far short of that expected of a member of the U.S. military and does not meet the requirements for an upgrade of his characterization of service. Relief is not warranted.

The Applicant contends his unauthorized absences were the result of family problems with his wife and child. The NDRB recognizes that serving in the U.S. Navy is challenging. Our country is fortunate to have men and women willing to endure the hardships and sacrifices required in order to serve their country. It must be noted that many members of the Navy endure hardships similar to those of the Applicant. It must further be noted that the vast majority of those members do not commit misconduct as a result of their problems. Despite their hardships, these sailors are still able to serve honorably and therefore earn their honorable discharges. In fairness to those members of the Navy, commanders and separation authorities are tasked to ensure that undeserving Sailors receive no higher characterization than is due. The NDRB found that the Applicant's service was equitably characterized. Relief denied.
Since the NDRB has no jurisdiction over reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Navy, Marine Corps, or any other of the Armed Forces, NDRB is not authorized to change a reenlistment code. Reenlistment policy of the naval service is promulgated by the Commander, Navy Recruiting Command, 5722 Integrity Drive, Bldg 784, Millington, TN. Neither a less than fully honorable discharge nor an unfavorable "RE" code is, in itself, a bar to reenlistment. A request for a waiver is normally done only during the processing of a formal application for enlistment through a recruiter.

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 documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments or any additional evidence related to this discharge. 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), re-issued October 2002, effective 22 Aug 2002 until Present, 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 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part V, Para 502, Propriety .

 D. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part V, Para 503, Equity .

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 “ http://Boards.law.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:

                  Secretary of the Navy Council of Review Boards
                   Attn: Naval Discharge Review Board
                   720 Kennon Street SE Rm 309
                  Washington Navy Yard DC 20374-5023

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00609

    Original file (ND03-00609.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. In the absence of a discharge package, the Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (C) and, after a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, found that the discharge was proper and equitable (D and E).Issue 1: The Applicant's discharge characterization accurately reflects his service to his...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00673

    Original file (ND02-00673.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    SR D_ T_ presented a written statement, which I reviewed while in legal, which told of how she had overheard these girls talking about how they were going to "get me" and other things, but her statement was not even taken into account, nor was she present at the mast in front of LCDR C_. 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,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600332

    Original file (ND0600332.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Issues, as stated Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:“-I would like for my RE-4 code and/or my narrative reason to be upgraded for eligibility to return to a branch of service.” Appeal denied 031105.031008: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with the least favorable characterization of service as general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct - pattern of misconduct and misconduct - commission of serious offense. The names, and votes of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501132

    Original file (ND0501132.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND05-01132 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20050629. The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. The Applicant states that his record of service included good evaluations, awards and decorations, and that he had combat service.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500410

    Original file (ND0500410.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Suffering from a complete mental breakdown I felt completely alone and was unable to handle my affairs. No indication of appeal in the record.040430: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with the least favorable characterization of service possible as under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense and misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.040430: Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600205

    Original file (ND0600205.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND06-00205 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20051116. The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. As of this time, the Applicant has not provided any post-service documentation for the Board to consider.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-01012

    Original file (ND04-01012.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requested the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. I confronted him one last time and asked him for my money because the check wasn’t at my apartment nor was it in the room. In Appendix 12 of the Manual for Courts-Martial, a punitive discharge is authorized for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 121, Larceny and wrongful appropriation; or Article 123, Forgery if adjudged at a...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501408

    Original file (ND0501408.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions). The NDRB advises the Applicant that normally, to permit relief, a procedural impropriety or inequity must have occurred during the discharge process for the period of enlistment in question. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500467

    Original file (ND0500467.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND05-00467 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20050125. Issues, as stated Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application or attached document/letter: “Dear Review Council: On or about 11 March 2004 I, J_ T_ M_ (Applicant) (social security number deleted) , received an OTHER THAN HONORABLE DISCHARGE from the United States Navy. The Deputy stated that he would contact my ship/Command to inform them of my location and situation so someone could come and...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500463

    Original file (ND0500463.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. 001006: Commanding Officer, Service School Command, Great Lakes, IL recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense and misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct. Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent that such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the Applicant’s...