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

 ex-Pvt, USMC
Docket No. MD03-01296

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20030724.  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 Failure to Adapt/Attention Deficit Disorder.  The Applicant requests a documentary record 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 20040504.  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/MISCONDUCT, authority:  MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6210.6.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

1. “Please consider upgrading my son, S_ P. R_, discharge to honorable.  He enlisted with the full intent to serve his country and do his best.  As it turned out, he just wasn’t cut out for military life and couldn’t cope.  A lot of the blame should go on us, his parents, for not taking action for his discharge at the very beginning of boot camp.  He begged & pleaded with us in almost every letter to get him out because he could not handle it.  We thought if he could just make it through boot camp he would be alright; we were wrong!    S_ is a fine young man.  He has never been in trouble or arrested (outside of his apprehension by the military for going AWOL.)  Since his discharge last year he has held the same full time job at Boar’s Head Meat Co. here in Clearwater, FL. And has been a responsible & loving husband & good father to his new born son.  They are saving & making plans to purchase a little starter house of their own.
    My son is not unpatriotic or a poor American citizen… he’s just a young man who had great aspirations and intentions but lacked the emotional and mental resources to see it through.”

Documentation

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

Applicant’s DD Form 214
Letter from J_ T_ dated 3 October 2002
Letter from J_ T_ dated 2 October 2002
Psychiatric Evaluation dated 2 May 2002
Letter from Applicant’s mother

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   None
	Inactive: USMCR(J)		001031 - 011008	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  011009		Date of Discharge:  021017

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    00  06  01 (Does not include lost time)
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  4 

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  41

Highest Rank:  Pvt

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Proficiency:  4.0 (3)			Conduct:  2.4 (5)

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NDSM

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  205

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority:  MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6210.6.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

020408:	Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct.  [UA from 020218 to 020404.]  Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.  

020415:	To UA.

020514:	Declared deserter.

020925:	From UA, to duty (161 days/A).

021002:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense as evidenced by your unauthorized absence.

021003:	Applicant advised of rights and having consulted 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.

021007:	Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.  The factual basis for this recommendation was the Applicant’s unauthorized absence.

021010:	SJA review determined the case sufficient in law and fact.

021016:	GCMCA [CG, MCB, CLNC] directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20021017 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense (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.  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 extended unauthorized absences that are considered serious offenses.  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.  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.  An upgrade is inappropriate.  Relief denied.

The Applicant’s discharge characterization accurately reflects his service to his country.  The discharge was proper and equitable.  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 6210, MISCONDUCT of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16E), effective 31 January 1997 until present). 

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