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

 ex-PFC, USMC
Docket No. MD02-00891

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 020530, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable.  The Applicant requested 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 030311.  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: GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/SECRETARIAL AUTHORITY, authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6214.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as submitted

1.  During my service in the U.S.M.C., I was a highly motivated marine.  I did my job the best I knew how and obeyed orders I was given.    Upon receiving my general court martial, the only punishment I was to receive was a reduction in rank and forfeiture of pay.  I accepted that as it was handed down.  The only thing I was charged with was Breach of Peace for allowing music to be played too loudly in my barracks room.     After my court martial convened, it was my understanding that it was over.  Then it came down to me that I was being separated from the Marine Corps.  That was not part of my court martial punishment, and was never told where this was coming from.     I hope you will consider my case and upgrade my discharge to "Honorable" for the honorable service I gave.

Documentation

Only the service and medical records were reviewed, as the Applicant did not provide additional documentation for the Board to consider.

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):

	Active:   None
	Inactive: USMCR(J)		920714 - 930620	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  930621		Date of Discharge:  961216

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:  03  05  26
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  19			Years Contracted:  6

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  67

Highest Rank:  LCpl

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Proficiency:  4.4 (7)		Conduct:  4.4 (7)

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NDSM, SSDR, Rifle Sharpshooter Badge, Pistol Expert Badge

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None 

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/SECRETARIAL AUTHORITY,  authority:  MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6214.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

941101:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92:  Violated SqdnO 11111.2D by possessing liquor in the barracks.
Awarded forfeiture of $484.00 per month for 1 month, restriction and 
extra duties for 30 days (30 days extra duty suspended for 6 months).  Not appealed.

960814:	Summary Court-Martial.
	Charge I:  violation of the UCMJ, Article 116.
	Specification 1:  In that LCpl (Applicant) did at Marine Corps Air Station, Cherry Point, NC, on or about 27 June 1996, cause a breach of peace by wrongfully playing racially derogatory music at a high volume, shouting and singing racially derogatory words in a public place, to wit:  Barracks #4310, Marine Corps Air Station, Cherry Point, NC.
	Finding:  to Charge I and the specification thereunder, guilty.
	Sentence:  Forfeiture of two-thirds of one months pay, reduced to E-2.
	CA action 960822:  Sentence approved and ordered executed.

960918:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under honorable conditions (general) by reason of best interest of the service.

960918:  	Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights except the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation.

960918:	Commanding Officer recommended discharge under honorable conditions (general) by reason of separation in the best interest of the service.  The factual basis for this recommendation was due to the member's breach of peace by wrongfully playing racially derogatory music at a high volume, shouting and singing racially derogatory words in a public place.  Member's conduct was such as to bring discredit upon the service, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline.  

960927:	SJA review determined the case sufficient in law and fact.

961104:	Headquarters U.S. Marine Corps recommended to SECNAV discharge under honorable conditions (general) in the best interest of the service.

961107:	SECNAV (ASN M&RA) directed the Applicant's discharge under honorable conditions (general).

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 961216 under honorable conditions (general) due to the best interest of the service (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).

Issue 1.  A characterization of service of under honorable conditions (general) 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 award of non-judicial punishment and a summary court-martial.  His participation in a racial incident was valid grounds for processing for administrative separation in the best interest of the service.  The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflects his disobedience of the orders and directives which regulate good order and discipline in the naval service, and falls short of that required for an honorable characterization of service.  An upgrade to honorable would be inappropriate.  Relief denied.

The Applicant’s discharge characterization accurately reflects his service to his country.  Normally, to permit relief, an error or inequity must have existed during the period of enlistment in question.  No such error or inequity is evident during the Applicant’s enlistment.  Additionally, there is no law, or regulation, which provides that an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time, for good conduct in civilian life, or to enhance employment opportunities, subsequent to leaving the service.  Relief not warranted.

The Applicant is reminded that he remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of his discharge.  Representation at a personal appearance hearing is recommended but not required.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Paragraph 6214, SEPARATION IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE SERVICE, of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual (MCO P1900.16E, effective 960408 until Present).

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