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

ex-LCpl, USMC
Docket No. MD03-01458

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20030909.  The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable.  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 20040608.  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 considered by the NDRB.  The Board’s vote was unanimous that the character of the discharge shall not change.  The discharge shall remain: UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL)/Parenthood, authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6203.1.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

1.  “-In march of 1993, I  became a single-parent of my 15 month old son Kody.  I tried hard to stay in Marine Corps However my Sgt. Major said I was non-deployable, as I had no one to watch my son.”

-I was scheduled to be deployed again in August of 1993 back to Iwakuni, Japan but again had no one to care for my son.  Sgt. Major then advised I would be forced out and initiated discharge proceedings.

-Prior to discharge on 12/15/93, I was advised by S-1 Captain that general under honorable discharge was standard for single-parent discharges  However it would automatically be upgraded to Honorable in six months after discharge.

-Ten years later I return to college to finish my criminal justice degree.  I applied for my GI Bill education benefits and was denied because discharge was not honorable as expected and advised it would be.  Please correct and upgrade and notify VA Ed. Benefits as well as providing me with DD214 correction at your earliest conveinance.  Thank you respectfully.”

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		860827 – 890827	HON
	Inactive: USMCR(J)		850921 - 860826	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  890828		Date of Discharge:  931215

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:  04  03  19
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  5

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  65

Highest Rank:  Cpl

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Proficiency:  4.2 (14)		Conduct:  4.2 (14)

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  LoA, GCM (w/*), SSDR (w/*), SASM, NUC, LoC, MM  

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  5 

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

UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL)/Parenthood, authority:  MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6203.1.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

900221:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 134: Fail to maintain sufficient funds in checking account to cover eight checks for a total of $830.00.
Awarded reduction to E-3.  Not appealed.

930422:	Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct.  [Failure to be at the Rifle Range on time.]  Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.  

930429:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: UA from 0430, 930330 to 2200, 930403; violation of UCMJ, Article 91: Willfully disobeyed order of SSgt. T_ to report to the Station Gym; violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Derelict in performance of duties.
	Awarded forfeiture of $500 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to E-3.  Not appealed.

930511:	Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct.  [Nonjudicial punishment.]  Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.  

930816:	Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct.  [Responsibilities as a Marine and failure to be at a scheduled run on 930810.]  Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.  

930920:	Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct.  [Failure to make yourself available for worldwide assignment.]  Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.  

930920:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under  honorable conditions (general) by reason of parenthood.  The Applicant is not available for worldwide assignment as a single parent.

930920:  	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.

930920:	Commanding Officer recommended discharge under honorable conditions (general) by reason of parenthood.  

931110:	SJA reviewed the case and recommended that Applicant be processed for discharge for misconduct.

931202:	GCMCA [CG, 3d MAW] directed the Applicant's discharge under  honorable conditions (general) by reason of parenthood.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19931215 under honorable conditions (general) due to parenthood (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.  When a Marine’s service has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service as honorable.  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 nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on two occasions and adverse counseling entries on other occasions.  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 is inappropriate.  It must be noted that most Marines serve honorably and well and therefore earn honorable discharges.  In fairness to those Marines, commanders and separation authorities are tasked to ensure that undeserving Marines receive no higher characterization than is due.  Relief denied.

The Veterans Administration determines eligibility for post-service benefits, not the NDRB.  There is no requirement or law that grants recharacterization solely on the issue of obtaining veterans’ benefits and this issue does not serve to provide a foundation upon which the Board can grant relief.

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.  Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16D, effective 890627 until 950817), paragraph 6203, CONVENIENCE OF THE GOVERNMENT.      

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