Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600088
Original file (ND0600088.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-SA, USN
Docket No. ND06-00088

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20051017. The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable and the Narrative Reason for Separation be changed to “RE 3 or better.” 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 20060802. After a thorough review of the available 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:

“I was coerced into a fraudulent enlistment by my Navy Recruiter. I would like the opportunity to serve under honest conditions. I’m appealing the RE-4 on my record. I never went to court-martial as stated. I was asked to sign a disclaimer instigating my “Hispanic heritage”. I am Caucasian. I was 18 at the time, and I thought I was going to be in serious trouble. I’ve tried to correct this, but to no avail. I’m asking for the opportunity to serve my country on the battlefield.”

 Applicant’s Remarks: Taken from the DD Form 293:

“I was approaching the Army Recruiting Office. When the Navy Recruiter approached me. He promised me LASIK eye surgery and a “straight-shot” to the Navy Seal training program (as I was interested in the Special Forces). I am currently trying to enlist in the Army Infantry/Airborne MOS. This “mark” against me has ruined my life and shamed my family. I’m asking to make up for it.”

 Documentation
Only the service and medical records were reviewed. The Applicant did not provide additional documentation for the Board’s consideration.

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     19940830 – 19941004      COG
         Active: None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 19941005             Date of Discharge: 19961210

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 00 05 05 (excludes lost time)
         Inactive: None

 Time Lost During This Period (days):
         Unauthorized absence: 631 days
         Confinement:              None

 Age at Entry: 18

Years Contracted: 4

Education Level: 10 (GED)                          AFQT: 78

 Highest Rate: SA

 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 3630650.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

950115:  Applicant to unauthorized absence. [Extracted from DD214]

950117:  Applicant declared deserter.

 960919:  Applicant apprehended by civil authorities at Conroe, TX.

961009:  Applicant from unauthorized absence/returned to military control. [631 days]

961112:  Legal Officer, Transient Personnel Unit, Great Lakes, informed Naval Hospital Great Lakes, that the Applicant had requested separation in lieu of trial under other than honorable conditions for the good of the service and requested that the hospital determine whether Applicant requires psychiatric evaluation.

961113:  T_ H_, Primary Care Physician, Naval Hospital Great Lakes, determined psychiatric evaluation not necessary.

 961210:  Applicant discharged under other than honorable conditions by reason of separation of lieu of trail by court-martial per MILPERSMAN 3630650 and TPU LTR DTD 961203. [Extracted from DD Form 214]

 Service Record did not contain the Administrative Discharge package.


PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion
The Applicant was discharged on 19961210 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 available records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (C and D). The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (E).

 In the absence of a complete discharge package, the Board presumed regularity of governmental affairs. As such, the Board presumed that the Applicant requested discharge to escape trial by court-martial; that the Applicant had the elements of the offense(s) for which he was charged fully explained by counsel; that the Applicant admitted guilt to the offense(s); and that the Applicant had a complete understanding of the negative consequences of his actions. 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. Further, given the Board’s presumption, no other Narrative Reason for Separation could more clearly describe why the Applicant was discharged. Relief denied.

When 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 631-day unauthorized absence. The Applicant’s unauthorized absence, a violation of Article 86 of the UCMJ and the commission of a serious offense, is punishable by punitive discharge upon conviction at 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 Applicant implies that his discharge is inequitable because he was young and feared the repercussions of his fraudulent enlistment. The Applicant also alleges he was “coerced” into fraudulently enlisting and promised specific training and surgery. While he may feel that his youth and immaturity was the underlying cause of his misconduct, the record clearly reflects his willful misconduct and demonstrated he was unfit for further service. The evidence of record did not show that the Applicant was either not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions. Additionally, there is no evidence in the record, nor has the Applicant produced any evidence, to support the contention that he was coerced into fraudulent enlistment by his recruiter or that he was misled in the recruitment process. The Applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity in this case. However, even if the Applicant could show misrepresentations or coercion in the recruitment process, such actions would neither amount to a justification nor to a defense for the Applicant’s own misconduct. 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. 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. Additionally, the Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment, educational opportunities or enlistment. Relief is not warranted.

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. 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 14, effective
03 Oct 96 until 11 Dec 97, Article 3630650, PROCEDURES FOR PROCESSING ENLISTED PERSONNEL FOR 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 .

 E. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part II, Para 211, Regularity of Government Affairs .



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 | ND0501099

    Original file (ND0501099.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND05-01099 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20050623. The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions). I would be greatly appreciated.” Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:ASVAB Data scores (2 pages) PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501373

    Original file (ND0501373.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. 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,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00860

    Original file (ND04-00860.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND04-00860 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20040427. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable and the narrative reason changed to defective enlistment and induction. On 19901023, the Applicant requested an under other than honorable conditions discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial for his period of unauthorized absence in excess of 30 days.

  • 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.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00521

    Original file (ND03-00521.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-00521 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030211. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Letter from Applicant, undated Applicant’s DD Form 214 One page from Applicant’s service record PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501562

    Original file (ND0501562.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to entry level separation or uncharacterized. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant’s DD Form 214 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: USNR (DEP) 19990129 –...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500588

    Original file (ND0500588.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). 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:Secretary of the Navy Council of Review Boards

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01243

    Original file (ND03-01243.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-01243 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030717. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. 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) 960717 -...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00452

    Original file (ND02-00452.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00452 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020226, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214 Admin Discharge Package (6 pages) PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active:...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00631

    Original file (ND03-00631.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-00631 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030225. 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. 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...