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

 ex-Pvt, USMC
Docket No. MD00-00028

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 991003, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable.  The applicant requested a personal appearance hearing before a traveling panel closest to Los Angeles.  The applicant did not list any representative on the DD Form 293. In the acknowledgement letter to the applicant, the applicant was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 000525.  After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, NDRB discerned no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the applicant’s service.  The Board’s vote was unanimous that the character of the discharge shall not change.  The discharge shall remain: UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Misconduct-Pattern of misconduct (with admin discharge board), authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6210.3.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

1.  I was discharged due to going AWOL.  At the time my mother had serious medical problems.
I was also not fairly treated in my unit.  I feel that I was singled out and given more extra duties than other soldiers.  I feel that I was subjected to racial slurs and I feel that I was not treated fairly as a soldier.  All my problems started at my last duty station.  I was not allowed to attend a family funeral.  I completed three years of service.  I regret my actions. I was young at the time and regret my mistakes.

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):

	Active:   None
	Inactive: USMCR(J)		831229 - 840925	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  840926		Date of Discharge:  871023

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    03  00  28 (excl lost time)
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  68

Highest Rank:  LCpl

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Proficiency:  4.0 (9)			Conduct:  3.6 (9)

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  Letter of Appreciation

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  38 

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Misconduct-Pattern of misconduct (with admin discharge board), authority:  MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6210.3.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

860122:	Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct.  [Unauthorized absence from appointed place of duty from 0810 to 0910, 860120.  This lack of punctuality, dependability and unsatisfactory performance will not be tolerated.]  Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued

860521:	Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct.  [Repeated instances of unauthorized absence from my place of duty, the most recent on 860519.]  Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued

860903:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86:
Specification: Failure to go at the prescribed time to assume the duties of MWHS 3 Squadron Duty Clerk.
Awarded forfeiture of $150.00 per month for 2 months, reduction to PFC.  Reduction to PFC suspended for 6 months.  Not appealed.

861215:	Vacate suspended reduction to PFC awarded at NJP 3Sep86.

870406:	Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct.  [Failure to obey lawful orders, failure to maintain proper grooming standards, apathetic work performance and lackadaisical attitude. Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued

870512:	Special Court-Martial.
	Charge I: violation of the UCMJ, Article 86 (3 specifications):
	 Unauthorized absence 0715, 18Jan87 to 2130, 15Feb87 (28 days/surrendered)
	Specification 1: Unauthorized absence 0255, 18Apr87 to 2200, 25Apr87 (10 days/apprehended)
	Specification 2: Failure to go at the prescribed time to appointed place of duty 0800, 0900, 1000, 1100, 1200, 1300, 1400, 1500, 1600 26Apr87. 
	Specification 3: Failure to go at the prescribed time to appointed place of duty 0600, 27Apr87.
	Charge II: violation of the UCMJ, Article 134:
	Specification: Break restriction on 18Apr87.
	Findings:  to Charge I (except spec 3)and Charge II and specifications thereunder, guilty.
	Sentence:  Forfeiture of $300.00 per month for 2 months, confinement for 2 months, reduction to Pvt.
	CA 870703: Sentence approved and ordered executed.

870714:	Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.  The factual basis for this recommendation was two derogatory Page 11 counseling entries; 1 nonjudicial punishment, and conviction by a special court martial. 

870714:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.

870715:  	Applicant advised of his rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge Board.

870810:	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, that the misconduct warranted separation, and recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions.

870918:	SJA review determined the case sufficient in law and fact.

870923:	GCMCA [CG, 3d MAW] directed the applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 871023 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct (A).  The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (B).  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 found the applicant provided no documentation to substantiate his issues. The Board did find that the applicant received one NJP and one special court-martial for violations of the UCMJ, specifically Articles 86 and 134.  The applicant was UA for a total of 38 days.  Clearly the applicant’s service does not warrant an honorable discharge.  Relief denied.

The following is provided for the applicant’s edification.  The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge (E).  The applicant must be aware that 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 the civilian life subsequent to leaving the service.  Normally, to permit relief, an error or injustice must have been found to have existed during the period of enlistment in question.  Outstanding post-service conduct, 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, may be considered by the NDRB.  The applicant is reminded that he is eligible for a personal appearance hearing provided the application is received within 15 years from the date of discharge.  Representation at personal appearance hearing is highly recommended as is proof of post-service conduct.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Paragraph 6210, MISCONDUCT, of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16C), Change 4, effective 29 Jul 87 until 26 Jun 89.

B.  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.  

C.  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.

D.  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