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

Docket No. MD03-00938

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

ex-LCpl, USMCR
Docket No. MD03-00938

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20030430.  The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable and the reason for the discharge be changed to END (Unqualified Resignation).  The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review.  The Applicant listed McCormack & Woodlief as the 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 and narrative reason of the discharge shall not change.  The discharge shall remain:  UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Failure to Participate (Reserve not on active duty) (administrative discharge board required but waived), authority:  MARCORSEPMAN 6213.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Issues submitted by Applicant’s counsel/representative (CIVILIAN COUNSEL):

1.  “PETITION FOR REVIEW BEFORE THE NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD

The Petitioner, by counsel, hereby submits this Petition for Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States pursuant to Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1553, Executive Order 9397, and for upgrade of his Other than Honorable Discharge from the United States Marine Corps Reserves.
ISSUE SUBMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION

The Petitioner submits that he has been unjustly subjected to the imposition of an Other than Honorable Discharge by the United States Marine Corps Reserves and respectfully requests that this Honorable Board set aside said discharge and upgrade his discharge characterization to Honorable, reflect a separation code of END (unqualified resignation) and a reenlistment code of RE-1.

RELEVANT FACTS

A.  PETITIONER’S HISTORY: Petitioner is a male, 32 years of age as of the filing of this Petition.  His date of birth is 14 November 1970.  He and his wife M_ have been married for 2.5 years and have no children at this time.  The Petitioner is the only son born to his parents.  He has an older sister.  The Petitioner graduated from Justin Siena High School in 1988.  Prior to enlisting in the United States Marine Corps he had absolutely no interaction with law enforcement authorities.  On 18 June 1990 the Petitioner, pursuant to orders, entered Initial Active Duty for Training (Boot Camp) at Marine Corps Recruit Depot, San Diego, California.  While in Boot Camp, the Petitioner held responsibilities such as Battalion High Shooter, Secretary, and Class Historian.  These responsibilities earned him a meritorious promotion from Private to Private First Class.  Upon completion of initial active duty training, the Petitioner was assigned to Fort McClellan, Alabama from 29 October 1990 to 7 December 1990 to qualify for his MOS of 5711 (Nuclear, biological, and chemical defense specialist) where he graduated 2^nd in his class of approximately 30.  On 6 December 1990, upon completion of the Petitioner’s initial active duty for training (IADT), he was transferred to Marine Aircraft Group-46, Det. Bravo, 4th Marine Aircraft Wing, NAS, Alameda, California to fulfill his 8 year Marine Corps Reserve obligation.
On 26 March 1993 the Petitioner initiated a Request for Transfer from MAG-46 Det.  Bravo, NAS Alameda, California to MAG-49 Andrews AFB, Virginia.  The reason for the request was due to the fact that the Petitioner was moving to Northern Virginia to attend college at George Mason University and he desired to complete his reserve commitment at MAG-49.  The Petitioner initially submitted his request orally to SSgt R_, S-l, MAG-46, Det.  Bravo, NAS Alameda, California in order to determine what paperwork needed to be completed.  The Petitioner was contacted on 26 March 1993 by GySgt M_.  GySgt M_ acknowledged the Petitioner’s request for transfer and provided a formal Request for Transfer letter.  The Petitioner signed the Request for Transfer in the presence of GySgt M_ and submitted it for processing.  Apparently, due to the Petitioner’s recent relocation of his personal residence, the Petitioner cannot locate a copy of that document and cannot provide a copy to the Board at this time.  The Petitioner did however maintain a log of his attempts to effectuate his transfer to MAG-49.  This log was made contemporaneously with the incidents that are noted in the log.  The Petitioner has included a copy of this log as Enclosure A. to this petition.  Each of the factual accounts of the Petitioner’s attempts to contact military officials are reflected in Enclosure A.
On 14 April 1993 the Petitioner made a telephone call to MAG-46 to check the status of his transfer paperwork.  He spoke to Lance Corporal C_.  Lcpl C_ was very rude to him and stated that she was not processing his transfer paperwork as she was unaware that any such request for transfer existed.  The Petitioner advised Lcpl C_ of his discussion with GySgt M_ on 26 March 1993, but received no resolution.
On 15 April 1993 the Petitioner departed for Permissive TAD/house hunting in preparation for his move to Northern Virginia and subsequent transfer to MAG-49.  This departure was confirmed verbally with SSgt R_, S-I, MAG-26, Det.  Bravo, NAS Alameda, California.
On 4 May 1993 GySgt G_ P_, NBC Detachment NCOIC, MAG-46, Det. Bravo, personally admitted to the Petitioner that, “S-I dropped the ball” and agreed to get the process back on track.  Also on this date, the Petitioner spoke via telephone with Sgt C_ of MAG-49, Det. Bravo about the status and was advised again by Sgt C_ that there was no knowledge of any such transfer request.  On 10 May 1993 the Petitioner contacted, via telephone, S-3, MAG-49 to check the status of his request.  He left a message for SSgt R_ and received no return call.  On 11 May 1993 the Petitioner contacted, via telephone, SSgt R_ to inquire as to his upcoming ATD and June/July drill dates.  SSgt R_ advised the Petitioner at that time that no paperwork had been received at MAG-49 pertaining to the Petitioner’s transfer request.
On 15 May 1993 the Petitioner met with S-1 GySgt M_, MAG-46, Det.  Bravo to discuss the status of his request for transfer.  At this time the Petitioner provided additional information to GySgt M_ to include copies of his college acceptance letters from the University of Maryland and George Mason University.  GySgt M_ advised the Petitioner that he would generate a Letter of Transfer for the Petitioner’s signature.  This was done and signed by the Petitioner on 16 May 1993.  (see Enclosure B.) At this time, the Petitioner was advised that he was receiving a SRB Page 11 entry for UL (unauthorized leave) for his previous TAD to Maryland.  The Petitioner refused to sign the Page 11 and explained that he had verbal permission from MAG-46, SSgt R_ prior to his departure for said TAD.  Also on 16 May 1993 the Petitioner completed a transfer physical pursuant to MAG-46, Det.  Bravo, S-1’s request (see Enclosure C.).
On 21 May 1993 the Petitioner left a message for MAG-49, S-1 to check on the status of his transfer paperwork, to which there was no return call.  On 24 May 1993 the Petitioner again left a message for MAG-49, S-1 and again received no return call.  On 26 
May 1993 the Petitioner again called MAG-49 and left a message specifically for Sgt C_.
On 27 May 1993 Sgt C_ contacted the Petitioner and advised that no transfer paperwork had arrived to MAG-49 from MAG-46.  The Petitioner then contacted MAG-46 and spoke with Lcpl C_ who advised that the paperwork had been sent, but Lcpl C_ could not verify when or by whom.  Lcpl C_ then advised the Petitioner that she would check into the matter and call him back, which she never did.
On 2 June 1993 the Petitioner contacted MAG-49 and left a message for Sgt A_ to discuss the status of his transfer.  When the Petitioner received no call back, he again called MAG-49 and left a message for Sgt C_ to call him.  Again, the Petitioner received no call back.  On 7 June 1993 the Petitioner contacted MAG-46 and spoke with the duty officer.  The Petitioner was advised at this time that MAG-46, S-1 would be calling MAG-49, Sgt A_ within the next week to discuss the matter of the Petitioner’s transfer.  On 10 June 1993 the Petitioner contacted Sgt A_ (MAG-49) and was told that he could not come to the phone, but would call the Petitioner back.  The Petitioner received no call back.  On 18 June 1993 the Petitioner called MAG-46, S-l, SSgt P_ and left a message concerning his transfer paperwork and received no call back.  The Petitioner then called MAG-49, S-1, Sgt A_ and was advised that Sgt A_ would be out of his office until 19 June 1993 and would call the Petitioner back then.  The Petitioner received no call back, so on 20 June 1993 the Petitioner called MAG-46, and left a message with Cpl A_ (the duty) to have S-1 call him.  The Petitioner received no call back.
On 21 June 1993 the Petitioner sent a letter to Congressman V_ F_ (Enclosure D.) requesting assistance in getting his transfer situation resolved.  During the last week of June 1993, the Petitioner moved to Virginia.  On 29 June 1993 the Petitioner received a message that MAG-46, S-1, Lcpl C_ called and stated that the Petitioner had, “just left California” and was in an unauthorized leave status.  Also on 29 June 1993 the Petitioner received another telephone message from MAG-46, S-3, Cpl T_ stating that his transfer was complete.  The Petitioner never received a letter of confirmation to this effect and was advised by MAG-49 that they had no knowledge of the transfer.  In addition, the Petitioner was never informed by anyone at that time of the intention to take him to an Administrative Separation Board.
On 30 June 1993 the Petitioner sent a letter to MAG-46, Det. Bravo, Commanding Officer, Lieutenant Colonel T_ H_ (Enclosure E.), requesting assistance and release from Reserve Drilling status to IADT.  It must be noted that the letter clearly established that the Petitioner’s home address on 30 June 1993 was in Virginia, specifically, 2301 N. 11^th St.  #201.  Arlington, VA 22201.  The Petitioner never received a response from Lieutenant Colonel H_.
Pursuant to the Affidavit of Service by Mail (Enclosure F.), prepared by Sgt K_ of MAG-46, Det.  Bravo, a Notification of Separation Proceedings, dated 8 January 1994 (Enclosure G.) was mailed to the Petitioner on or about 10 January 1994 to the address of 1175 Lake Blvd., Apartment 202, Davis, California 95610.  The Petitioner had not resided at this address for over 7 months.  It is without a doubt that the command was fully aware that this was not a correct address based on two facts: 1) the letter written to Lieutenant Colonel H_ dated 30 June 1993 clearly showing the Petitioner’s mailing address to be in Virginia; and 2) the statement made by Lance Corporal C_ that the Petitioner "just left California" which established the commands knowledge that the Petitioner no longer resided at his California address.

On 12 February 1994 a Recommendation for Administrative Discharge (Enclosure H.) was presented from Commanding Officer, MAG-46, Det.  Bravo, Alameda to the Commanding General, Marine Reserve Forces (SJA), New Orleans.  It is interesting to note that in paragraph 4.  it is stated, “Every effort was made to contact this Marine, to no avail.” In fact, there was never any attempt to contact the Petitioner at his address in Virginia, which he provided to the command in his letter to Lieutenant Colonel H_, a letter that went unanswered.
The Petitioner never at any time ‘just left” California or his responsibilities with the Marine Corps Reserves.
From July of 1993 to February 1995 the Petitioner attended school at George Mason University (GMU) focusing his studies on Computer Science and Business.  While attending GMU the Petitioner was very active.  He was a founding father of Pi Kappa Alpha Fraternity, an organization that developed and executed a comprehensive community and student activity program, which involved over 4000 hours of community service.  The Petitioner held the offices of Sergeant at Arms and President.  He is an alumnus in good standing.  The Petitioner was a member of the GMU Lacrosse Team and also volunteered in providing free training and assistance on computer operating systems and networking to other students.
In February 1995 the Petitioner was offered and accepted his first professional career with a computer sciences firm in New York, then called JMI, now Ajilon a division of Addeco.  The Petitioner worked there until August 1998 and achieved a promotion to Senior Recruiter in Charge of Mid-Atlantic recruiting of Delaware based manufacturing and financial institutions for customers including DuPont, Wilmington Trust, Zeneca, Merck, Chase and J.P.  Morgan.  The Petitioner opened a new office in Delaware and increased revenues to over $4 million within 18 months.  He was then promoted to Sales Executive and won numerous company awards to include “Greatest Increase in Billable Headcout”, which attributed to over $5 million in company revenues.  The Petitioner then transferred to Corporate Operations to assume the role of Year 2000 Project Manager to oversee the remediation and conversion of over 2000 corporate desktops and servers.
From August 1998 to February 2002 the Petitioner worked for Oracle Corporation in California as a Senior Sales Consultant responsible for the technical aspects of corporate database sales.  The Petitioner again demonstrated great achievements to include his promotion to Senior Technology Consultant and featured speaker at Oracle Open World, South America in Sao Paulo, Brazil.  He published three white papers on emerging Oracle technologies and their impact on corporate computing and achieved the level of Mircosoft Certified Professional and Oracle Certified Professional requiring 5 individual certifications which represent expert level skills in corporate computing technologies.
In December of 1998 the Petitioner’s father was diagnosed with colon cancer, which was operated on and at the time the operation seemed successful.  In December of 2001 the Petitioner’s father was again diagnosed with cancer in his abdomen and began a vigorous course of chemotherapy.  It was at this time that the Petitioner’s father called 
upon him to take over the family company which his grandfather had started in 1937.  The Petitioner has worked for the family business since February 2002 and is currently the Senior Vice President of Pauli Systems, Inc. (PSI), where he has operational authority over global operations consisting of 220 domestic and international distributors, Global Field Services and Federal Operations.  PSI is actively engaged in projects with all federal DoD and DoT branches of service.
The Petitioner is also a very active member of his community and has affiliations and/or memberships with the following organizations (all in good standing):

• Life member California Highway Patrol 11-99 Foundation.
• Prospective member of the San Francisco County Sheriffs Office, Mounted Unit.
• Member of Society of Manufacturing Engineers
• Member of Association of Production and Inventory Control Specialists.  (APJCS)
• Member of Air Force Association
• Who’s Who of International Business for 2002
• Ducks Unlimited
• National Rifle Association
• Associate Board Member of San Francisco Symphony — Symphonies Organization
• CalTrout (California Trout Catch & Release)
• San Francisco Ballet
ARGUMENT
The Marine Corps Separation Manual (MARCORSEPMAN) para. 6303(4) governs the notice requirements in the Petitioner’s case.  MARCORPSEPMAN 6303.4(b)(5)(a) states that “reasonable effort should be made to furnish copies of the notice to the member....”  This was obviously not done in the Petitioner’s case.  He had made numerous phone calls to MAG-46.  He had left his Virginia telephone phone number in order to allow contact with him by his command.  He had sent a letter with his Virginia address to his commanding officer.  He had contacted his congressman, who had corresponded with the Petitioner’s command, and had relayed his Virginia address in that manner.  The command was well aware of the Petitioner’s location, but it made no effort to ensure that he was notified properly of the pending administrative separation.
“A discharge characterized as anything other than honorable carries with it both a serious stigma in the form of injury to reputation and loss of employment opportunities.” White v.  Secretary of the Army, 278 US.  App.  D.C.  399; 878 F.2d 501 (1989); Bland v. Connally,110 U.S.  App.  D.C.  375, 293 F.2d 852, 858 (“D.C.  Cir.1961).  An other than honorable discharge also may lead to the loss of entitlement to federal and state veterans benefits.  See Roelofs v.  Secretary of the Air Force, 202 US.  App.  D.C.  307, 628 F.2d 594, 603 and i.  12 (‘D.C.  Cir.1980,) (Bazelon, ii, concurring).  It is for this reason that the military services, including the Marine Corps, has created numerous safeguards and regulations to protect service members in administrative discharge and court-martial proceedings.  The protections include the right to counsel, the right to a hearing, but most importantly, a right to notice of the proceedings.  MARCORSEPMAN para. 6304 (1).
In addition, 10 U.S.C.  §1163 (c) (repealed effective December 1, 1994) held that no member of a reserve component may be discharged under other than honorable conditions unless that member is discharged under the approved findings of a Board of commissioned officers.  As shown by Enclosure I., Administrative Discharge, there was no Board held in the Petitioner’s case.  The command apparently considered that the Board was waived pursuant to MARCORSEPMAN para. 6304 (4)(a) due to the Petitioner’s failure to respond to the Notice, which he never received and was not sent to his then correct address which the Marines were aware of.  This result makes it all the more important that the Petitioner be properly notified when being administratively separated.  The Petitioner first discovered that he had been administratively separated with an 0TH in approximately June of 2000, after sending a request to obtain a copy of his DD-214 from the United States Marine Corps.
The Petitioner made all reasonable attempts to effectuate his transfer from MAG-46.  Had he been given notice of the pending administrative separation he would have been able to properly defend himself.  Based upon his prior excellent performance he would almost certainly have been able to obtain an honorable discharge from the United States Marine Corps.
In addition to the above procedural defects in the processing of the Petitioner, the Board is requested to consider the Petitioner’s good character, community involvement and excellent work history since his date of discharge.  He has successfully entered the work force and now is a senior vice-president of an international corporation, P_ S_ Inc.  As part of the Petitioner’s job responsibilities, he is required to interact extensively with all Department of Defense components.  The Petitioner’s other than honorable discharge has the potential to prejudice him in the conduct of his business.  More importantly, the Petitioner is proud of his service to the United States and wishes that his discharge accurately reflect the excellent character of that service.
Based upon the above, the Petitioner respectfully requests that this Honorable Board set aside said administrative discharge, correct petitioner’s DD-214 to reflect a discharge characterization of Honorable, reflect a separation code of FND (unqualified resignation) and a reenlistment code of RE-1.”

Documentation

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

Copy of DD Form 214
Applicant’s log with affidavit (6 pp.)
Seventeen pages from Applicant’s service record
Letter from Applicant to Congressman
Letter from Applicant to Commanding Officer

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:    None
	Inactive:  None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  900108		Date of Discharge:  940329

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    00  05  18
	Inactive:  03  09  04

Age at Entry:  19			Years Contracted:  8 

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  93

Highest Rank:  Cpl

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Proficiency:  4.3 (5)		Conduct:  4.4 (5)

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  MM, NDSM, MUC 

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None 

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Failure to Participate (Reserve not on active duty) (administrative discharge board required but waived); authority:  MARCORSEPMAN 6213.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

900618:	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.

920720:	Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct.  [UA from drills on 920718 & 920719.]  Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.  Marine refused to sign entry.

920817:	Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct.  [UA from drills on 920815 & 920816.]  Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.  Marine refused to sign entry.

920921:	Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct.  [UA from drills on 920919 & 920920.]  Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.  Marine refused to sign entry.

930111:	Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct.  [UA from drills on 930109 & 930110.]  Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.  Marine refused to sign entry.

931205:	Declared unsatisfactory drill participant.  Letter mailed to Applicant.

940107:	Administratively reduced to LCpl.

940110:	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. 6304.4a).

940212:	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 13 unexcused absences.  Every effort was made to contact this Marine; to no avail.  This Marine has demonstrated an extreme lack of desire to be a Marine.  I assess his potential for further service as zero.

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

940329:	GCMCA [CG, Marine Reserve Force] directed the Applicant's discharge under conditions other than honorable 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 19940329 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 scheduled unit drills.  The Applicant’s record of service shows that the Applicant was unexcused from three consecutive months consisting of eight separate dates of unit drills during the summer of 1992 and prior to his claimed relocation to the east coast.  The Board presumes that during these eight days in which the Applicant was unexcused in 1992 that his unit conducted more than the nine drills necessary to be designated an unsatisfactory participant and processed for administrative separation.  During 1993, the Applicant was unexcused from more than 13 drill periods.  No other narrative reason more clearly describes the circumstances surrounding the Applicant’s processing for administrative separation.  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 or under honorable characterization of service.  Relief denied.
 
The Applicant claims that his notification of processing for administrative separation was improperly and inequitably mailed to an incorrect address.  The Applicant’s argument that the letter he claims he mailed to his CO in June 1993 provided his last known address does not refute the presumption of regularity in this case.  Despite the Applicant’s assertion to the contrary, the Board found no indication that the Applicant’s congressman executed the Applicant’s responsibility to keep his reserve support center informed of his current address.  The failure to acknowledge official certified mail constitutes acknowledgement and waiver of all rights (MARCORSEPMAN par. 6304.4a).  The Board has no way of knowing when the Applicant last updated his address to MAG 46, Detachment B in Alameda, CA.  The record states that the Applicant was transferred to VMFA 321, MAG 49, Detachment B at Andrews AFB on 930726, joined for duty with MALS 42, MAG 42 in Alameda, CA on 930819, then joined for duty with MALS 46, Detachment B, MAG 46 in Alameda, CA on 931211 until discharge.  There is no indication in the record that the Applicant’s last known address was other than that to which the notification was sent and the Applicant’s claim to the contrary does not refute the presumption of regularity.
The Board found nothing to support the Applicant’s assertion that his command made no effort to ensure he was properly notified of his pending separation during the winter of 1993-1994.  Relief denied.

Further, the Board noted that the Applicant was seeking to be transferred to the IRR or discharged from the SMCR in his letters to his CO and congressman.  The USMC was under no obligation to transfer the Applicant to the IRR or end his enlistment due to the circumstance that the Applicant may have moved from California to Arlington, VA.  There are four Marine reserve units within a 50 mile radius of Arlington, VA that the Applicant could have joined to complete his obligation.  The Applicant’s MOS would have been particularly useful to at least two of those units.  The Applicant’s frustration with his unit transfer and desire to end his enlistment does not mitigate his misconduct evidenced by his failure to participate in reserve unit drills.  On 19900618, the Applicant signed a statement that acknowledged his understanding that if he moved from his initial reserve unit, he must join another reserve unit in the new area.  A few alleged phone calls to one of four units in the new area and his statement that he could not afford a personal vehicle with which to commute to drill do not mitigate his failure to participate in reserve unit drills.  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.  However, the NDRB is authorized to consider outstanding post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge, 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.  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, employment record, documentation of community service, certification of non-involvement with civil authorities and credible evidence of a substance free lifestyle, are examples of verifiable documentation that may be provided to receive consideration for relief, based on post-service conduct.  The Applicant’s evidence of post-service conduct was found not to mitigate the offense for which he was discharged.  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 P1900.16D, effective 890627 until 950817) states that a Marine may be separated for unsatisfactory participation in the Ready Reserve under criteria established in MCO P10014.1.

B.  Marine Corps Reserve Administrative Management Manual, MCO P10014.1.

C.  Table 6-1, Guide for Characterization of Service, of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16D, effective 890627 until 950817).

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: