Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600619
Original file (ND0600619.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-ABFAN, USN
Docket No. ND06-00619

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20060404 . 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 20070125 . 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 dischar ge shall not change. The discharge shall remain Under Other Than Honorable Conditions in lieu of a trial by court-martial .






PART I - ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Decisional Issues :

Equity: Post service

Equity: Employment opportunity
Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Letter from Applicant, dtd January 27, 2006 (2), ( 2 pgs)
Fax Cover Sheet, dtd January 27, 2006
 Applicant’s DD Form 214 (Member 4) (2)
Applicant’s DD Form 214 (Member 1) (2)
Excerpts from Service Record (41 pgs)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     19941013 - 19941103       COG
          Active: None

Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 19941104              Date of Discharge: 19990114

Length of Service (years, months, days):

          Active: 0 4 02 10 (Does not exclude lost time.)
         Inactive: None

 Time Lost During This Period (days):
         Unauthorized absence: 833 day s
         Confinement:              None

Age at Entry: 1 9

Years Contracted: 4

Education Level: 12                                 AFQT: 48

Highest Rate: ABFAN

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, Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, Sea Service Deployment Ribbon , Navy Battle “E” Award .

* 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 :

9610 09 :  Report of Declaration of Deserter (NAVPERS 1600-3). Applicant declared a deserter having been o n unauthorized absen c e since 0700, 960905 from USS NIMITZ (CVN 68).
9812 16 :  Applicant apprehend ed by civil authorities at 2330 in Denver, CO.
981221:  Charges preferred for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) Article 86: Unauthorized absence (UA) from 0700, 960905 to 0930, 981217.

981221:  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 : Did on or about 0700, 960905, without authority, absent himself from his unit, to wit: USS NIMITZ (CVN-68), located at Bremerton, WA, and did remain so absent until apprehended on or about 0930, 981217 . 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.

981221:  Administrative Remarks: No disciplinary action taken for the period of absence from 0700, 960905 to 0930, 981217. Administrative checkage for this period of absence.

 981221 :  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 under other than honorable conditions .
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 19990114 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 Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (E).
When a member’s service has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service under honorable conditions. Characterization of service under other than honorable conditions 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. There is irrefutable evidence that the Applicant’s conduct during his time in service was not honorable. Indeed, the Applicant’s records contain a violation of UCMJ Article 86 (Unauthorized absence for 833 days). Violation of Article 86 is a serious offense for which a punitive discharge is authorized under Appendix 12 of the Manual for Courts-Martial (B) and typically warrants a characterization of service as under other than honorable conditions. The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of service, falls well below that required for an upgrade in characterization of service. Relief denied.

Equity – Employment opportunity: The Applicant is advised that there is no requirement or law that grants recharacterization solely on the issue of obtaining Veterans' benefits or enhancing employment and educational opportunities. Regulations limit the Board’s review to a determination of the propriety and equity of the discharge. Since these issues do not provide a foundation upon which the Board can grant relief, relief on this basis is not warranted.

Equity – Post service: Normally, to permit relief, a procedural impropriety or inequity must have occurred during the discharge process for the period of enlistment in question, but the Board found no such impropriety or inequity. While 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 service, the Board 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. 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, verifiable employment records, documented community service, and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities are examples of documentation that should have been provided to receive consideration for relief based on post-service conduct. At this time, the Applicant did not provide any post-service documentation for consideration. Relief on this basis 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. The Applicant can provide documentation to support post-service accomplishments or any other evidence related to the discharge 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 [U nauthorized absence for a period more than 30 days] upon conviction by a Special or General Court-Martial, in accordance with the Manual for Courts-Mar tial .

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 Instruction 1332.28, you may submit a complaint in accordance with Enclosure (5) of that Instruction . You should read Enclosure (5) of the Instruction 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 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 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 | 2008_Navy | ND0800685

    Original file (ND0800685.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part IV, Para 403m(7)(b), Presumption Concerning Court-Martial Specifications .Applicant Testified: Applicant Available for Questions: Witnesses: Observers: DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. The Applicant is advised that completion of these items alone does not guarantee the upgrade of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00128

    Original file (ND00-00128.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    900412: An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence and by unanimous vote, found that the applicant had committed misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and misconduct due to commission of serious offense, that the misconduct warranted separation, and recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions and further recommended that the discharge not be suspended. Accordingly, I concur with the Board's recommendation that ABFAA (Applicant) be...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501206

    Original file (ND0501206.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 “receive VA Benefits.” The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review. 920908: BUPERS directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to pattern of misconduct.920911: Applicant surrendered on board USS NIMITZ (CVN 68), at 0730 on 920911 (4...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600867

    Original file (ND0600867.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 “ Convenience of the service.” TheApplicant requests a documentary record discharge review. The Applicant's DD Form 214, Block 28, Narrative Reason for Separation, indicates he was separated in lieu of trial by court-martial. As of this time, the Applicant has not provided any post-service documentation to consider...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-01006

    Original file (ND04-01006.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review. The Board found no indication from the service record and documentation provided by the Applicant that he was denied proper medical care or that he should have been discharged for “medical reasons.” Regarding the Applicant’s post-service diagnosis of Bipolar Disorder, the mere presence of a personality disorder is...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00960

    Original file (ND99-00960.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND99-00960 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 990709, 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 (2 copies) Statement from applicant PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active:...

  • USMC | DRB | 1999_Marine | MD99-01057

    Original file (MD99-01057.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD99-01057 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 990802, 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:Statement in support of claim signed May 1999 Copy of marks Copy of report of medical board dated May 12, 1997 Copy of preliminary findings of the Physical...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500112

    Original file (ND0500112.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. Now currently disabled can’t support my family unless discharge is upgraded to allow me to receive the proper benefits and help I deserve.”The Applicant’s representative submitted no issues. 950619: Report of Return of Deserter: Applicant apprehended by military authorities at 0930, 950614, (119 days) at Salisbury, North Carolina.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600101

    Original file (ND0600101.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). Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant’s DD Form 214 Department of Veterans Affair Statement in Support of Claim (4 pgs) PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: USNR...

  • USMC | DRB | 2000_Marine | MD00-00068

    Original file (MD00-00068.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD00-00068 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 991018, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. 850919: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: UA 2100, 850623 to 0930, 850715 (22days).Awarded forfeiture of $200.00 per month for 2 months, restriction for 60 days (suspended for 6 months). After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found...