ex-, USMC

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received:  20080630
Characterization of Service Received:  
Narrative Reason for Discharge:  
Authority for Discharge:  MARCORSEPMAN 

Applicant’s Request:  Characterization change to:  
		       Narrative Reason change to:  

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive:  USMCR (DEP) 20000229 - 20001015  		Active:  

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment:  20001016	Period of Enlistment:   Years   Months	Date of Discharge:  20050331
Length of Service:    Years    Months  16  Days	Education Level:  	Age at Enlistment:  
AFQT:  74     MOS:  7257	     Highest Rank:      Fitness Reports:  
Proficiency/Conduct Marks (# of occasions):   () /  ()
Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):  Rifle  Pistol 

Periods of UA/CONF:  

NJPs:  
20020211:  Article 86 (UA), 3 specifications:
		- Specification 1, failed to be at appointed place of duty on 20020109
		- Specification 2, absent from place of duty on 20020113
		- Specification 3, failed to be at appointed place of duty on 20020119
                    Article 92 (Disobeying a lawful order)
                    Awarded:       Suspended:   (Suspension vacated 20020318)

20020318:  Article 92 (Disobeying a lawful order)
                   Article 107 (Making a false official statement)
                   Awarded:     Suspended:   

20030911:  Article 91 (Insubordinate conduct toward a SNCO)
                   Article 92 (Disobeying lawful order)
                   Awarded:      Suspended:    
6105 Counselings:  

20020211:  For violations of UCMJ Article 86 (X3) and 92.

20020215:  For assignment to body composition program.

20030926:  For wrongful use of government phones for unofficial calls.

20040520:  For unsatisfactory performance while assigned to body composition program.

20040116:  For second assignment to body composition program.

20041101:  For unsatisfacotry performance, professional incompetence, and failure to make progress in body
                   compistion program.

6105 Counseling (cont):

20041122:  For unsatisfactory performance while assigned to body composition program.

Illegible date:  For Violation of UCMJ Article 107, making a false official statement.

Types of Documents Submitted/reviewed

Related to Military Service:	DD 214:  	Service and/or Medical Record:  		Other Records:  

Related to Post-Service Period:	
	Employment:			Finances:			Education/Training:	
	Health/Medical Records:		Substance Abuse:			Criminal Records:	
	Family/Personal Status: 		Community Service:  		References:  		
Additional Statements From Applicant:  		From Representation:  		From Member of Congress:  
Other Documentation (Describe):  

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

Applicant’s Issues

1.  Discharge based on weight control failure only.
2.  Record of service.

Decision

Date:  20081009		Location:  Washington D.C.	 Representation:  

By a vote of  the Characterization shall  .
By a vote of  the Narrative Reason shall  UNSATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE.

Discussion

:  ()  .  The Applicant contends his discharge should be upgraded since his record of service was good except for his failure of the Marine Corps Body Composition Program.  In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of Government affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the Applicant.  The Applicant’s record of service is marred by three NJPs for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ):  Articles 86 (UA); Article 91 (Insubordinate conduct towards SNCO); Article 92 (Disobeying a lawful order); and Article 107 (Making a false official statement), eight retention warnings, and an adverse finding from a Competency Review Board.  Violations of Articles 91, 92, and 107 are considered serious offenses, punishable by punitive discharge and confinement if adjudicated by a special or general court-martial.  The command did not pursue a punitive discharge but opted instead to retain the Applicant.  However, his failure to satisfactorily complete his second assignment to the Body Composition Program required separation processing:  The command determined the Applicant’s characterization of service based on his record of misconduct and the adverse findings of the Competency Review Board.  For the edification of the Applicant, a “General (Under Honorable Conditions)” characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member’s service has been honest and faithful; however, significant negative aspects of the member’s conduct or performance of duty outweighed positive aspects of the member’s service record.  The Board determined the characterization is proper and an upgrade would be inappropriate.

After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service,  Record, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found 

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A.  Paragraph 6206, UNSATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE, of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16F), effective 1 September 2001 until Present.

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

C.  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 91, 92, 107.

ADDENDUM:  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 to the Joint Service Review Activity, OUSD (P&R) PI-LP, The Pentagon, Washington, DC  20301-4000.  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 more than 15 years, has already been granted a personal appearance hearing or has otherwise exhausted his opportunities before the NDRB, the Applicant may petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR), 2 Navy Annex, Washington, DC 20370-5100 for further review.

Service Benefits:  The Veterans Administration determines eligibility for post-service benefits, not the Naval Discharge Review Board.  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.

Employment/Educational Opportunities:  The Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment or educational opportunities.  Regulations limit the Board’s review to a determination of the propriety and equity of the discharge.  

Reenlistment/RE-code:  Since the NDRB has no jurisdiction over reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Navy, Marine Corps, or any other of the Armed Forces, the NDRB is not authorized to change a reenlistment code.  Only the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) can make changes to reenlistment codes.  Additionally, the Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities.  An unfavorable “RE” code is, in itself, not a bar to reenlistment.  A request for a waiver can be submitted during the processing of a formal application for reenlistment through a recruiter.

Medical Conditions and Misconduct:  DoD disability regulations do not preclude a disciplinary separation.  Appropriate regulations stipulate that separations for misconduct take precedence over potential separations for other reasons.  Whenever a member is being processed through the Physical Evaluation Board, and subsequently is processed for an administrative involuntary separation or is referred to a court-martial 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.  Additionally, the NDRB does not have the authority to change a narrative reason for separation to one indicating a medical disability or other medical related reasons.”  Only the Board for Correction of Naval Records can grant this type of narrative reason change.

Automatic Upgrades - 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.  Examples of documentation that may be provided to the Board include proof of educational pursuits, verifiable employment records, documentation of community service, credible evidence of a substance free lifestyle and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities.  

Issues Concerning Bad-Conduct Discharges (BCD) – Because relevant and material facts stated in a court-martial specification are presumed by the NDRB to be established facts, issues relating to the Applicant’s innocence of charges for which he was found guilty cannot form a basis for relief.  With respect to a discharge adjudged by a special court-martial, the action of the NDRB is restricted to upgrades based on clemency.  Clemency is an act of leniency that reduces the severity of the punishment imposed.  The NDRB does not have the jurisdictional authority to review a discharge or dismissal resulting from a general court-martial.

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