ex-, USMC

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received:  20090121
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)	20030709 - 20040620  	Active:	

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment:  20040621	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Months
Date of Discharge:  20080418	Highest Rank:  
Length of Service:    Year(s)    Month(s)  28  Day(s)
Education Level:  	AFQT:  80
MOS:  3381
Proficiency/Conduct Marks (# of occasions):   () /  ()	Fitness Reports:  

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	Rifle   ICM   LoC LoA (2)

Periods of UA/CONF:  

NJP:  
- 20061006:	Article 134 (Discharging through negligence, his M16A4 Service Rifle in the clearing barrel aboard Hurricane Point)
	Awarded:     Suspended:  

- 20070802:	Article 92 (Violated MCO 1700.28 by failing to obey the order)
	Article 93 (Ordering improper punishment to a subordinate - clean room, take out trash, make coffee)
	Awarded:      Suspended:  

- 20070908:	Article 91 (Disrespectful in language toward Cpl)
	Awarded:      Suspended:  

SCM:     SPCM:     CC:  

Retention Warning Counseling:  

- 20061006:	For violation of Article 134:  Firearm, discharging through negligence.  Specifically, while deployed to Ar Ramadi, Iraq, you failed to properly clear your M16A4 service rifle which led to a round being discharged into the clearing barrel.  As a result of your NJP, you are not eligible for promotion for November 2006 through April 2007.

- 20070802:	For violation of Article 92 and 93.

- 20070908:	For violation of Article 91:  Insubordinate conduct towards a noncommissioned officer.  Specifically, you were confrontational and disrespectful in deportment and language toward a noncommissioned officer.

Types of Documents Submitted/reviewed

Related to Military Service: 
              DD 214:  	                            Service/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 Congress member:    

                    Other Documentation:  

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A.  Paragraph 6210, MISCONDUCT, 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:  Articles 91, Article 92 and Article 93.

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

Applicant’s Issues

1.  Biased Administrative Separation Board.
 
Decision

Date:  20090423		Location: Washington D.C.	 Representation: 

By a vote of  the Characterization shall  .
By a vote of  the Narrative Reason shall  MISCONDUCT.

Discussion

:  ()  .   The Applicant contends he is entitled to a discharge upgrade because his Administrative Separation Board was unfairly biased against him.  Specifically, two of the members of the Board served under the same commanding officer as the Applicant and the commanding officer was the sole witness for the Government at the Board hearing.  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 was marred by three retention warnings and three NJPs for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 91 (Disrespect toward a superior noncommissioned officer); Article 92 (Disobeying a lawful order); Article 93 (Cruelty or maltreatment of subordinates) and Article 134 (Negligent discharge of a firearm).  Violation of Article 91, Article 92 or Article 93 is considered a serious offense which could have resulted in a punitive discharge and confinement if adjudicated and awarded as part of a sentence by a special or general court-martial.  The command did not refer the Applicant for a court-martial but opted instead for an administrative discharge.  The record of evidence shows the Applicant’s attorney wrote a letter of deficiency, dated 29 January 2008, addressing the same issue addressed by the Applicant here.  The NDRB determined the chain of command, including the separating authority, considered the letter of deficiency as well as the command’s response to it, in determining the outcome of the Applicant’s case.  The chain of command and the separating authority found nothing in the record or within the discharge process to support the contention the Administrative Separation Board was unfairly biased towards the Applicant and the Applicant has provided no new additional evidence in support of this claim.  The NDRB determined the awarded discharge was appropriate based on an established pattern of misconduct 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 

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