Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501408
Original file (ND0501408.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-ICFN, USN
Docket No. ND05-01408

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20050824. The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions). The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review. The Applicant did not designate a representative on the DD Form 293.

 Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20060421. 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 a trial by court-martial .
PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

 No issues were submitted by the Applicant.
Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Character Reference ltr from C_ C_, Assistant Vice President, Retail Banking, Heritage Bank of Schaumburg, dtd May 27, 2005
Character Reference ltr from C_ C_, Assistant Vice President, Retail Banking, Heritage Bank of Schaumburg, dtd January 17, 2006
Applicant’s DD Form 214

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     20020806 - 20021126      COG
         Active: None
Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 20021127             Date of Discharge: 20040902

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 01 09 06 (Does not exclude lost time.)
         Inactive: None

 Time Lost During This Period (days):
         Unauthorized absence: 216 days
         Confinement:              None

 Age at Entry: 19

 Years Contracted: 4 (12 month extension)

 Education Level: 12                                 AFQT: 64

 Highest Rate: ICFN

 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): None
* 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 :

040114:  Applicant to unauthorized absence at 0630 on 040114.

 040816:  Applicant from unauthorized absence at 1720 on 040816
(216 days/surrendered).
040817:  Charges preferred for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) Article 86: In that Interior Communications Electrician Fireman R_ M_(Applicant), U.S. Navy, Transient Personnel Unit, Great Lakes, Illinois, on active duty, did, on or about 0630, 14 January 2004 without authority, absent himself from his organization, to wit: USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75), located at Norfolk, Virginia, and did remain so absent until on or about 1720, 16 August 2004.

040817:  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 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: In that Interior Communications Electrician Fireman R_ M_(Applicant), U.S. Navy, Transient Personnel Unit, Great Lakes, Illinois, on active duty, did, on or about 0630, 14 January 2004 without authority, absent himself from his organization, to wit: USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75), located at Norfolk, Virginia, and did remain so absent until on or about 1720, 16 August 2004. 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.

040818:  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.

 Service Record was missing elements of the Summary of Service.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion
The Applicant was discharged on 20040902 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).

The Applicant introduced no decisional issues for consideration by the Board.
 On 20040817, 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 offense for which he was charged and that he admitted he was guilty of the offense. 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 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.

For the edification of the Applicant, w hen the service of a member of the U.S. Navy has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service as honorable. An under other than honorable conditions discharge is warranted when significant negative aspects of a member’s conduct or performance of duty outweigh the positive aspects of the member’s military record. The Applicant’s service was marred by a violation of Article 86 (unauthorized absence for 216 days) of the UCMJ. The NDRB advises the Applicant that certain serious offenses warrant separation from the Navy in order to maintain proper order and discipline. Violations of Article 86 are considered serious offenses and typically warrant a punitive discharge if adjudged at a special or general court-martial. 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 and falls far short of that required for an upgrade of his characterization of service. Relief is not warranted.

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 Board discovered no impropriety after a review of Applicant’s case. 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 Naval service. The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the Applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review. Examples of documentation that should be provided to the Board include proof of educational pursuits, documentation of community service, and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities. As of this time, the Applicant has not provided sufficient post-service documentation for the Board to consider.

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 30 May 2005, 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 | 2005_Navy | ND0500304

    Original file (ND0500304.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. As of this time, the Applicant has not provided any documentation for the Board to consider. 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

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600218

    Original file (ND0600218.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND06-00218 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 general (under honorable conditions) or uncharacterized. 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 | 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 | ND0500809

    Original file (ND0500809.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review. As of this time, the Applicant has not provided any post-service documentation for the Board to consider. 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

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00585

    Original file (ND04-00585.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions). When I wasn’t making enough in the military and my family was on the verge of being put out on the street, I didn’t know what to do. I married my girlfriend, worked full time, and saved enough money so my family could live while I was gone.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600712

    Original file (ND0600712.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, falls well below that required for an honorable characterization of service. The Applicant is advised that the Veterans Administration determines eligibility for post-service benefits not the Naval Discharge Review Board. You may view DoD Instruction 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501073

    Original file (ND0501073.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). USS ENTERPRISE, on active duty, did on board USS ENTERPRISE, on or about 0700, 27 May 2002, without authority, fail to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty, to wit: pretrial restriction muster.Violation of the UCMJ, Article 89: Specification: In that Mess Management Specialist Seaman C_ L. G_ (Applicant), U.S. Navy. USS...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00229

    Original file (ND02-00229.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Naval Service dated January 30, 1946 Character reference dated March 1, 2002 Character reference, undated Letter from Applicant's parents dated February 24, 2002 Letter from Applicant's sister dated May 2, 2002 Letter from Applicant's parents dated April 2, 2003 Letter from Applicant's grandfather dated April 3, 2003 Letter from Applicant, undated Two pages of photographs Correspondence relating to request for congressional interest (18 pages) Personal memos of phone calls (5 pages) Phone...

  • 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 | 2004_Navy | ND04-01041

    Original file (ND04-01041.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND04-01041 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20040607. 900710: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (21 specifications): UA from pre-trial restriction muster. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 19930222 with a bad conduct discharge which was the sentence adjudged by a properly convened special court-martial.