Author: CAP
Last saved by: shirley.robertson
Company: NCPB

Docket No. MD03-01484

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

ex-Pvt, USMC
Docket No. MD03-01484

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 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/MISCONDUCT, authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6210.3.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

1.  “I was guaranteed MOS when I was recruited from High School but this guarantee was igmored and I was placed in different MOS unsatisfactory I was promised meritorious promotion to Lance Corporal for recruiting and as a recruiter which was ignored.  My recruiter record wasvery good I was placed instead of guaranteed MOS Security Forces to LAAD MOS and sent to Cherry Point. I was later placed on ACM alert not allowed to leave base for 4 months due to call for wartime AD, did this time only to be singularly placed on 2^nd ACM alert without any leave time given while rest of my outfit on similiar alert was granted leave or break in duty with exception of leave granted me to attend the funeral of my grandmother. I requested MASS through channels as procedures demand, however was never answered regarding my mistreatment nor
answers to MASS. These are the reasons for my mistakes and misconduct as result of being lied to and totally mistreated. I do regret my errors and wish to have at least an upgrade up to honorable discharge as it is my feeling had I not been lied to and then been mistreated I more  than likely would have been a career Marine as my father did serve in USMC for 8 years and my grandfather careered and retired from USAF and then became a TN State Trooper and now retired from that position. Please read letters from my parents who are completely disillusioned with the Marine Corp due to the treatment and broken promises I received that eventually caused me to react.  Also letters from my chaplain at Cherry Point and others.”

Documentation

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

Copy of DD Form 214
Four pages from Applicant’s service record
Letter from Applicant’s father
Letter from HQMC to Congressman D_
Letter from Applicant’s parents to Congressman D_
Craven County Sheriff’s Office sponsor letter
Blount Count Sheriff’s Office applicant response letter

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   None
	Inactive: USMCR(J)		991029 - 991106	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  991107		Date of Discharge:  021115

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    03  00  09  (Does not exclude lost time)
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  4 

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  51

Highest Rank:  LCpl

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Proficiency:  4.0 (7)			Conduct:  3.1 (9)

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NDSM

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  195

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority:  MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6210.3.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

010802:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (2 specs):
Specification 1: UA from 0731, 010517 to 1730, 010612.
Specification 2: UA from 0731, 010625 to 1000, 010728.
Awarded forfeiture of $584.00 per month for 2 months, restriction for 60 days (suspended for 6 months), reduction to PFC.  Not appealed.

020121:	Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct.  [Frequent involvement with military authorities.]  Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.

020201:	Vacate suspended punishment from NJP of 010802.

020425:	Summary Court-Martial.
Charge I: Violation of UCMJ, Article 86: UA from 010904 to 020114.
Finding: Guilty.
Sentence: Forfeiture of $736.00, confinement for 30 days, reduction to Pvt.  
CA 020426:  Sentence approved and ordered executed. 

020628:	Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct.  [Height of 69”, weight of 193lbs, with a body fat of 20% which exceeds MCO P6100.12 standards.]  Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.

020731:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Disobey lawful order of Sgt M_;
violation of UCMJ, Article 86: UA from 0730, 020704 to 0730, 020708.
Awarded forfeiture of $552.00 per month for 2 months, restriction for 60 days.  Not appealed.

021009:	Summary Court-Martial.
Charge I: Violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (5 specs): 
Specification 1: UA on 020819.
Specification 2: UA on 020827.
Specification 3: UA on 020828.
Specification 4: UA on 020829.
Specification 5: UA on 020830.
Finding: Guilty to charge and all specifications.
Sentence: Forfeiture of $737.00, confinement for 30 days.  
CA 021009:  Sentence approved and ordered executed. 

021028:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct as evidenced by your frequent involvement with military authorities.

021028:	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.

021028:	Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.

021106:	SJA review determined the case sufficient in law and fact.

021106:	GCMCA [CG, 2d MAW] directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20021115 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct (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 award of two nonjudicial punishments (NJP), two summary courts-martial and adverse counseling entries on other occasions.  While he may feel that he was mistreated and lied to, the record clearly reflects his disregard for the requirements of military discipline and demonstrated that he was unfit for further 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.  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 Jan 97 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; and Article 92, disobey a lawful order.

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: