ex-Pvt, USMC
MD06-00798

BOX I:  Discharge at Issuance and Applicant’s Request:
Application Received:  				20060523 
Command at Discharge:  				VMFAT-101, MAG-11, 3DMAW
Narrative Reason for Separation:			Pattern of Misconduct
Character of Service:				Under Other Than Honorable Conditions
Discharge Authority:				MARCORSEPMAN para 6210.3

The Applicant requests:  				Documentary Review
Narrative Reason for Separation be changed to: 	None
Characterization of Service be changed to:  		General (Under Honorable Conditions)
Representation:  					None Designated

Complete Service Record:				Yes
Complete Medical Record:			No
Discharge Package Complete:			No

BOX II:  Decision:
Date of Decision:					20070315
Location of Board:				Washington D.C.
Regarding propriety, the Board found the discharge:	Proper
Regarding equity, the Board found the discharge:	Equitable at ISSUANCE;
after consideration of post-service conduct:	EQUITABLE	
(BCD) The Board found that clemency was: 		Not Applicable
Vote:						Unanimous
The Discharge shall remain:			Pattern of Misconduct/Under Other Than Honorable Conditions

BOX III:  Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

The NDRB did note administrative error(s) on the original DD Form 214:  Block 24, Character of Service, should read:  “UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITONS.”  The Commander, Navy Personnel Command, Millington, TN, will be notified, recommending the DD Form 214 be corrected or reissued, as appropriate.

BOX IV:  Summary of Service:
Prior Service:
Inactive: USMCR (DEP)				19970113 - 19970202	COG
Active:   None
Period of Service Under Review:
Age at this Enlistment:  18				Years Contracted:  4
Education Level:  12				AFQT:  86
Highest Rate:  PFC				MOS:  6531 Aviation Ordnance Technician

Date of Enlistment:  				19970203
Date of Discharge:				19991115
Length of Service:				02  Yrs  09  Mos  13  Days
Time Lost During This Period:			None

Performance/Conduct (number of marks):		4.1 (6)  /	  3.6 (6)
Awards and Decorations (as listed on the DD Form 214):  NONE

BOX V:  Disciplinary and Counseling Events:
970807:	Counseling:  Advised of deficiencies in performance and conduct (Unauthorized absence on 970710 and on 970711 and wrongfully disobeying a lawful written policy on 970720).  Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.

970716:	NJP for violation(s) of UCMJ:
	Article 86:  Fail to go to her appointed place of duty on 0630, 970710.  Article 86: Fail to go to her appointed place of duty on 1345, 970711.  Award:   Forfeiture of $150.00 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 30 days, reduction to E-1.  Forfeiture and reduction suspended for 4 months.  Not Appealed.

970725:	Forfeiture of pay and reduction in pay grade awarded and suspended at NJP on 970716 vacated.

970725:	NJP for violation(s) of UCMJ:
	Article 92: Wrongfully disobey a lawful written order on 0429, 970720.  Award:  Forfeiture of $450.00 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days.   Not Appealed.

971209:	Counseling:  Advised of deficiencies in performance and conduct (Violation of NATTC Policy regarding the use of the 21 year old designation Identification Bracelet on 971125 at 1845).  Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.

990428:	Counseling:  Advised of deficiencies in performance and conduct (Unauthorized absence, specifically on 990330 you were absent from appointed place of duty).  Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.  Not signed by Applicant.

990429:	Counseling:  Advised of deficiencies in performance and conduct (Since arriving to this command in Nov 1997 you have had a pattern of misconduct and minor disciplinary infractions.  On two different occasions (990303 and 980731) you showed a lack of respect for authority and were insubordinate to two different noncommissioned officers.  Also you received several informal counselings for not being able to show up for duty on time.  And also recently you have received several counselings due to lack of performance and unsafe ordnance procedures on the flightline).  Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided.  Not signed by command.

990514:	NJP for violation(s) of UCMJ:
	Article 86:  Award:  Forfeiture of $479.00 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 15 days, reduction to E-1.  Forfeiture and restriction suspended for 6 months.  Not Appealed.

BOX VI:  Medical Record Entries Related to Narrative Reason for Separation or Characterization of Service 

Medical records not available.

BOX VII:  Elements of Discharge:
Elements of notification:				
	Date:							19991012
Narrative Reason(s):					Misconduct- Pattern of Misconduct
	Least Favorable Characterization:				Under Other Than Honorable Conditions
	Commanding Officer’s Intent:				Under Other Than Honorable Conditions
Record shows Applicant met criteria for narrative reason(s):		Yes
Date Applicant responded to notification:				19991012
Rights elected at notification:							
Consult with Counsel					Waived
Obtain Copies	  					Waived
Submit Statement(s)					Waived
Administrative Board					Waived
Commanding Officer Recommendation (date):			Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (19991012)
SJA review (date):						Legally Sufficient (undated)
Discharge directed by (date):					Commander, 3d Marine Aircraft Wing (19991025)
Narrative reason directed		:				Misconduct – Pattern of Misconduct
Characterization of service:					Under Other Than Honorable Conditions

BOX VIII:  Decisional Issues

Regardless of an Applicant’s submitted issues, the Board reviews former service member’s discharges for propriety and equity.    In conducting reviews, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption.   

Propriety Narrative:
A Marine may be separated when there is a pattern which includes two or more discreditable involvements with civil and/or military authorities or two or more instances of conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline within one enlistment.  Such a pattern may include both minor and more serious infractions.  Separation processing may not be initiated until the Marine has been counseled.  The Applicant’s service record reflects 2 proper counseling entries and imposition of nonjudicial punishment on 3 separate occasions for violations of Articles 86 and 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.  The Applicant’s discharge was proper.

Equity Narrative:
When the basis for discharge is misconduct, characterization of service normally shall be under other than honorable conditions, but characterization as general (under honorable conditions) may be warranted in some circumstances.  The Applicant’s service was marred by 2 retention warnings, 3 nonjudicial punishment proceedings for violations of Articles 86 and 92 of the UCMJ, and a vacated suspension of punishment.  The record also reflects that the Applicant did not make diligent effort to overcome these deficiencies.  The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of her service, reflects her willful failure to meet the requirements of her contract with the U.S. Marine Corps and falls short of that required for an upgrade of her characterization of service.  Relief is not warranted.

BOX IX:  Applicant’s Issues and NDRB Response

The Applicant contends she should have been discharged for weight control failure or medically discharged rather than for misconduct.  When reviewing a discharge, the NDRB does consider the extent to which a medical problem might affect an Applicant’s performance and ability to conform to the military’s standards of conduct and discipline.  The NDRB generally does not consider the circumstances surrounding the Applicant’s stated condition nor the medical treatment given to the Applicant to be of sufficient nature to exculpate the Applicant’s misconduct.  In this case, the NDRB sees no connection between the Applicant’s misconduct and her medical condition.  The evidence of record indicates that her misconduct and weight problems began before arriving at the command from which she was discharged and of which she complains.  Further, the Applicant’s documents submission supports the conclusion that she received thorough medical examination and treatment for her complaint of hip pain.  For the Applicant’s edification, DoD disability regulations do not preclude a disciplinary separation.  SECNAVINST 1850.4D stipulates that separations for misconduct take precedence over potential separations for other reasons.  Even when a member is being processed through the Physical Evaluation Board, and subsequently is processed for an administrative involuntary separation for misconduct, the disability evaluation is suspended.  The Physical Evaluation Board case remains in suspense pending the outcome of the non-disability proceedings.  If the action includes either a punitive or administrative discharge for misconduct, the medical board report is filed in the member’s terminated health record.  Relief is not warranted.

The Applicant provided evidence of post-service accomplishments.  Normally, to permit relief, a procedural impropriety or inequity must have occurred during the discharge process for the period of enlistment in question.  The Board discovered no impropriety after a review of Applicant’s case.  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 Naval service.  The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the Applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review.  After a complete review of the entire record, including the evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board determined that the discharge was appropriate and that the evidence of post-service conduct was found not to mitigate the conduct which precipitated the discharge.   The Applicant’s discharge remains equitable after consideration of post-service conduct.

BOX X:  Minority Opinion

None

BOX XI:  Documentation and matters submitted by the Applicant and considered by the Board
Documents:
Applicant’s DD 214 (member 4)
Nineteen pages from Applicant’s service/medical records
Applicant’s Marine Corps League membership card
Applicant’s American Legion membership card
Character reference from J_ L. C_, dated August 15, 2005
Character reference from C_ W_, dated March 9, 2006
Character reference from B_ T_, dated March 10, 2006
Statement from Applicant, dated May 16, 2006

Personal Appearance Hearing:	Not Applicable
Applicant Testified:  
Witnesses:

BOX XII:  Pertinent Regulation/Law
A.  Paragraph 6210, MISCONDUCT, of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16E), effective 31 Jan 97 until 31 Aug 01.

B.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Para 211, Regularity of Government Affairs, Part V, Para 502, Propriety, and Para 503, Equity.  

Information for the Applicant

Complaint Procedures:  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 Instruction 1332.28, you may submit a complaint in accordance with Enclosure (5) of that Instruction.  You should read Enclosure (5) of the Instruction 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 Instruction 1332.28 and other Decisional Documents by going online at http://Boards.law.af.mil.

Additional Reviews:  Subsequent to a document review, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the 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 additional evidence related to this discharge.  Representation at a personal appearance hearing is recommended but not required.  If a former member has been discharged for greater than 15 years, or already been granted a personal appearance hearing, or has otherwise exhausted his or her opportunities before the NDRB, an Applicant may petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR), 2 Navy Annex, Washington, DC 20370-5100 for further review.

Board Membership:  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