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

 ex-PVT, USMC
Docket No. MD04-01478

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20040924.  The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable.  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 20050330.  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 – Pattern of misconduct (administrative discharge board required but waived), authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6210.3.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

No issues were submitted by the Applicant.

Documentation

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

None were submitted by the Applicant.

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   USMC		None
	Inactive: USMCR(J)		871231 - 880918	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  880919		Date of Discharge:  920302

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    03  05  11
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  4 

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  33

Highest Rank:  LCpl			MOS:  3531

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Proficiency:  4.1 (9)			Conduct:  4.0 (8)

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  RMB, SSDR (2), NAM, NDSM, MM, NUC, SASM(3)

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  65

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Misconduct – Pattern of misconduct (administrative discharge board required but waived), authority:  MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6210.3.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

891127:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Did on or about 1940, 891119 violate BnO 11000.1C by having a bottle of Seagrams Gin in his BEQ room #320, Camp Hansen, Okinawa, Japan.
Awarded forfeiture of $250.00 pay per month for 1 month.  Not appealed.
910517:	Applicant to UA at 0701, 910517.

910719:	Applicant from UA  (surrendered) at 1615, 010719.

910906:	Summary Court-Martial.
	Charge I:  violation of the UCMJ, Article 86,
	Specification: UA from unit from 0701, 910517 to 1615, 910719(63days/S). 
	Finding:  to Charge I and the specification thereunder, guilty.
	Sentence:  Forfeiture of $564.00 pay per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduced to E-1.
	CA action 910909:  Sentence approved and ordered executed.

910910:	Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct.  [Your habitual offenses under the UCMJ.]  Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.

911209:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Failed to obey an order from Sgt G___, his platoon sergeant, to make a check in phone call on 911201 between 1100-1300; violation of UCMJ, Article 86: UA (AWOL) 1201, 911201 to 0730, 911203 (2days/S), from HQSVCCO, 2d LAI Bn, 2dMarDiv.
Awarded Restriction and extra duties for 14 days.  Not appealed.

920204:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.

920204:	Applicant advised of 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.

920204:	Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.  The factual basis for this recommendation was the respondent’s summary court-martial conviction on 910906 and his two non-judicial punishments which were conducted on 891127 and 911209.  He has been appropriately counseled regarding his conduct; however he has failed to take corrective actions. 

920211:	SJA review determined the case sufficient in law and fact.

920212:	GCMCA, Commander, 2d Marine Division, 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 19920302 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).

The Applicant introduced no decisional issues for consideration by the Board.

The NDRB, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge, is authorized to change the character of service and/or the reason for discharge if such change is warranted.  There is no evidence of impropriety or inequity in the Applicant’s discharge.  The Applicant’s misconduct is clearly documented.  Therefore, relief is denied. 

When the service of a member of the U.S. Marine Corps has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service as honorable.  An under other than honorable conditions discharge 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 two nonjudicial punishment proceedings for violations of Articles 86 and 92 of the UCMJ and he was found guilty by a summary court-martial of violating of Article 86 (UA for 63 days). The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflects his willful failure to meet the requirements of his contract with the U.S. Marine Corps and falls far short of that required for an upgrade of his characterization of service.  Relief is not warranted.

The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of discharge.  The Applicant can provide documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments or any other evidence related to his discharge at that time.  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 P1900.16D), 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 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part II, AUTHORITY/POLICY FOR DEPARTMENTAL DISCHARGE REVIEW.

D.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part V, Para 502, Propriety.

E.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part V, Para 503, Equity.

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 “http://Boards.law.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:

		Secretary of the Navy Council of Review Boards
		Attn:  Naval Discharge Review Board
		720 Kennon Street SE Rm 309
		Washington Navy Yard DC  20374-5023