Author: CAP
Last saved by: Department of the Navy
Company: NCPB

Docket No. MD03-00242

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

ex-PFC, USMCR
Docket No. MD03-00242

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 20030115, 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 list any representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20031003.  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/UNSAT PARTICIPATION IN READY RESERVE, authority:  MARCORSEPMAN 6213.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

1.  “To Whom It May Concern:

The reason I am writing this issue is to inform you why I received a “other than honorable discharge” and request an upgrade to an “honorable discharge”.  I served with the 2d Battalion, 24th Marine Reserve Unit in Waukegan Illinois, during October of 1996 through June of 1998.  During that time I was preparing to become a paramedic.  I was working as an emergency medical technician basic for Pulse Ambulance Inc. on a 24hours on 48hours off schedule.  My schedule was very demanding and it was hard for me to get off work to attend drill.  Although as you can see I did attend drill as many times my schedule would allow.  I informed my commanding officer, which at the time was Captain K---- of my situation.  He said that all I had to do was come in during the middle of the week and make up drills as I went along.  I then asked my CO if I could make up my drills at the other reserve unit in Chicago because it was closer to my house.  Captain K---- said no, that I needed to make them up at the Waukegan unit.  This situation (i.e. schedule conflicts with paramedic duties and subsequent missed drills) went on for approximately three months.  I talked to Captain K---- again and asked if I could transfer to the Chicago unit because it was closer to my home and more convenient for me to make up drills that I missed.  Again he said no.  After another missed drill, I received a phone call from a Staff Sergeant who took care of supplies.  He told me if I was not going to attend drill any more then I should turn in my equipment.  I told him of my situation and he did not offer any information regarding my duty status.  His sole objective was the return of government property.  That week I dropped of my equipment and left a message for Captain K--- to give me a call regarding my status.  He never returned my call and a few months later I received my discharge via mail.

As stated previously my first goal is to determine the circumstances/authority, which granted me a discharge of under other than honorable.  I am naturally very interested in securing an upgrade to an honorable discharge.  As you can see I take service to the public very seriously, and I feel my service to the United States Marine Corps was of a high level.

I continued this level of service aiding those in need as an emergency medical technician-paramedic.  I feel that the communication and processing of my discharge was deficient and contributed to the issuance of a discharge of under other than honorable conditions.”

Documentation

In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:

Copy of DD Form 214

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   USMC		None
	Inactive: USMCR(J)		None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  960413		Date of Discharge:  980606

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    00  05  20
	Inactive:  01  08  04

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  6

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  45

Highest Rank:  LCpl

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Proficiency:  3.9 (3)			Conduct:  3.9 (3)

Military Decorations:  Rifle Sharpshooter Badge

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  None

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/UNSAT PARTICIPATION IN READY RESERVE; authority:  MARCORSEPMAN 6213.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

960413:	Enlistment contract into the USMCR documents acknowledgement of the requirement to participate in 48 scheduled drills and not less than 14 days of annual training per year for 6 years upon completion of initial active duty training.

971005:	Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct.  [Unexcused absences from the 3-5 Oct 97 drill periods (5 drills).]  Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.  Applicant not available for signature.

971006:	Commanding Officer notified the Applicant of unsatisfactory drill participation via letter.  Attempts to reach Applicant by phone were unsuccessful.

971102:	Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct.  [Unexcused absences from the 31 Oct – 2 Nov 97 drill periods (5 drills).]  Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.  Applicant not available for signature.

980111:	Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct.  [Unexcused absences from the 9-11 Jan 98 drill periods (5 drills).]  Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.  Applicant not available for signature.

980113:	Letter of intent to administratively separate under other than honorable conditions for the failure to participate in reserve training was sent via certified mail, return receipt requested.  Applicant failed to acknowledge the contents.  The failure to acknowledge official certified mail constitutes acknowledgement and waiver of all rights (MARCORSEPMAN par. 6303).

980208:	Commanding Officer notified the Applicant that he was administratively reduced in rank to Private First Class via certified letter.

980211:	Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to unsatisfactory participation in the Ready Reserve.  The factual basis for this recommendation was unexcused absences from the 3-5 Oct 97, 31 Oct-2 Nov 97, and 9-11 Jan 98 drill periods (15 drills).  Notification of separation proceedings was sent to the Marine and no response was received.

980527:	SJA review determined the case sufficient in law and fact.  

980527:	COMMARFORRES directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to unsatisfactory participation in the Ready Reserve.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19980606 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to unsatisfactory participation in the Ready Reserve (A, B, and C).  The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (D).  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 (E and F).

Issue 1.  A characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions is warranted when the member's conduct constitutes a significant departure from that expected of a Marine.  The Applicant’s service was marred by his failure to participate in his reserve drills.  References (A-C) authorize commanders to initiate separation proceedings when a reservist accumulates at least nine unexcused absences for scheduled drills.  While he may feel that unclear communication with his chain of command was a factor that contributed to his actions, the record is devoid of evidence that the Applicant was not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions. 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 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, or good conduct in civilian life, 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 6213 of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16E), effective 18 Aug 95. 

B.  Marine Corps Reserve Administrative Management Manual, MCO P1001R.1, Chapter 3, Reserve Participation and Administrative Procedures, paragraph 3301.

C.  Table 6‑1 of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16E), effective 18 Aug 95, Guide for Characterization of Service.

D.  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.  

E.  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.

F.  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

The remaining portion of this document is divided into 4 Parts: Part I - Applicant’s Issues and Documentation, Part II - Summary of Service, Part III – Rationale for Decision and Pertinent Regulation/Law, Part IV - Information for the Applicant.
INDEX: