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

Docket No. MD03-00851

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

ex-LCpl, USMC
Docket No. MD03-00851

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20030410.  The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable or general/under honorable conditions.  The Applicant requests 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 20040312.  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/Conduct triable by courts-martial (request for discharge for the good of the service), authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6419.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

1.  “Prior to my UA charge, I was on my way to a distinguished military career.  Certificate of Commendation, 3 Meritorious Mast, 2 Meritorious Promotions, Platoon Honorman in bootcamp, MCT, and School of Infantry.  The circumstances around my UA was due to a marriage that I was told was acceptable through my chain of command; only after was I to learn that it was in violation.  My chain of command then denied responsibility.

I only wish for a discharge status change AND a change in re-enlistment code so that I may return to service and serve honorably.  I do not wish for a change to obtain Veterans Benefits.  I have contacted my local recruiter and you are my next stop.  A re-enlistment code of RE-1 or RE-3 is what I am most interested in.

Thank you,
J_ J_ G_ (Applicant)”

Documentation

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

Applicant’ s DD Form 214
Statement/letter from Applicant, dated May 18, 2003
Picture
Certificate of Commendation, dated April 19, 1991
Meritorious Mast, dated June 24, 1991
Meritorious Mast, dated August 13, 1991
Meritorious Mast, dated November 25, 1991
Applicant’s résumé
Letter from Applicant’s wife, dated May 18, 2003
Character reference, dated May 18, 2003
Character reference, dated May 12, 2003
Character reference, dated June 9, 2003

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   None
	Inactive: USMCR(J)		910104 - 910123	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  910124		Date of Discharge:  921016

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    01  08  23	Does not exclude time lost
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  19			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  74

Highest Rank:  LCpl

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Proficiency:  4.1 (2)			Conduct:  2.7 (3)

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NDSM, MM (3), Certificate of Commendation, SSDR

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  106

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Conduct triable by courts-martial (request for discharge for the good of the service), authority:  MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6419.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

920813:	Charges preferred to special court-martial for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) Article 86: Unauthorized absence from 920310 to 920626 (106 days/apprehended).

920921:	Applicant, having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Art 27b, requested discharge for the good of the service to escape trial by court- martial.  In the request the Applicant noted that his counsel had fully explained the elements of the offenses for which he was charged and that he understood the elements of the offenses.  He further certified a complete understanding of the negative consequences of his actions and that characterization of service would be under other than honorable conditions.  The Applicant admitted guilt to the following violations of the UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence from 920310 to 920626 (106 days/apprehended).

920922:	SJA review determined the case sufficient in law and fact.

920925:	GCMCA [Commander, 1^st Marine Expeditionary Brigade] determined that Applicant had no potential for further service, that separation in lieu of trial by court-martial was in the best interest of the service, and directed discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of conduct triable by courts-martial.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19921016 under other than honorable conditions in lieu of trial by court-martial (A and B).  The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (C).  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 (D and E).

Issue 1.  On 19920921, the Applicant requested discharge for the good of the service to escape trial by court-martial.  In the request the Applicant certified a complete understanding of the negative consequences of his actions and that characterization of service would be under other than honorable conditions.  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.  Relief denied.

Concerning a change in reenlistment code, the NDRB has no authority to change reenlistment codes or make recommendations to permit reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Naval Service or any other branch of the Armed Forces.  Neither a less than fully honorable discharge nor an unfavorable “RE” code is, in itself, a bar to reenlistment.  A request for waiver is normally done only during the processing of a formal application for enlistment through a recruiter.  

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 6419, SEPARATION IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT-MARTIAL, of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16D), effective 27 Jun 89 until 17 Aug 95.

B.  The Manual for Courts-Martial authorizes the award of a punitive discharge if adjudged as part of the sentence upon conviction by a special or general court-martial for violation of the UCMJ, Article 86, unauthorized absence for more than 30 days.

C.  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.  

D.  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.

E.  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: