ex-, USMC

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received:  20120228
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)	20011017 - 20011125  	Active:	

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment:  20011126	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Months
Date of Discharge:  20020619	Highest Rank:  
Length of Service:    Year(s)    Month(s)  25  Day(s)
Education Level:  	AFQT:  65
MOS:  8011
Proficiency/Conduct Marks (# of occasions):   () /  ()	Fitness Reports:  

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	Rifle  

Periods of UA/CONF:  

NJP:  	SCM:  	SPCM:  	CC:  

Retention Warning Counseling:  

- 20020415:	For fraudulent enlistment (failure to disclose a pre-existing disqualifying disposition at MEPS)

- 20020415:	For your diagnosed physical condition not a disability (fractured right foot)

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:		Rehabilitation/Treatment:		Criminal Records:	
	Personal Documentation:		Community Service:		References:	
	Department of VA letter:		Other Documentation:	
		Additional Statements:
	From Applicant:		From/To Representation:		From/To Congress member:	

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A.  The Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual (MCO P1900.16F), effective 1 September 2001 until Present, Paragraph 6207, HOMOSEXUAL CONDUCT.

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.  Public Law 111-321, signed 22 Dec 2010 (implemented 20 Sep 2011). 

D.  Under Secretary of Defense (P&R) Memorandum (Repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell), 20 Sep 2011.

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

Applicant’s Issues

1.  The Applicant contends that the Uncharacterized was improper as she was on active duty in excess of 180 days.  She also contends that her narrative reason and characterization might negatively influence employers and educational institutions.

Decision

Date:  20120531	         	Location:  Washington D.C.	Representation:  

By a vote of , the Characterization shall  .
By a vote of , the Narrative Reason shall  .
By a vote of , the Reentry Code shall  RE-4.

Discussion

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 the reason for discharge if such change is warranted.  In reviewing discharges, the NDRB presumes regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the Applicant.  The NDRB completed a thorough review of the circumstances that led to the discharge, and the discharge process, to ensure the discharge action met the pertinent standards of equity and propriety.  The Applicant’s record of service included two retention-counseling warnings regarding her fraudulent enlistment in the Marine Corps and a diagnosed physical condition, not a disability, that was interfering with the effective performance of her duties and may possibly lead to administrative separation if she did not overcome the condition.  The Applicant’s service record reflects no non-judicial or judicial disciplinary actions while in service and no civilian convictions for misconduct.  When notified of entry level separation processing, the Applicant was erroneously notified using the board  procedure; with this notification, the Applicant was advised that the least favorable characterization of service warranted at discharge was General (Under Honorable Conditions).  The Applicant acknowledged her understanding of the notification of separation proceedings and her rights therein; she elected to exercise her right to consult with a qualified legal defense counsel, but waived the right to request that an administrative hearing board be convened to hear her case for retention.  The Applicant further elected not to submit a written statement to the Separation Authority for his consideration.  

:  (Decisional Issue) ()  .  The Applicant contends that the discharge characterization of service she received was improper as she was on active duty in excess of 180 days, therefore contending that Uncharacterized was not a proper characterization of service.  Moreover, the Applicant contends that her discharge narrative reason and characterization, as issued, negatively influences employers and educational institutions and leads to discrimination regarding her sexual orientation and confusion regarding the characterization of her service.  The Applicant received a characterization of service at discharge of Uncharacterized due to her entry-level separation.  An Uncharacterized discharge is warranted when separation is initiated while a member is within the first 180 days of continuous active duty, except when the characterization of service as Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) is authorized or Honorable is clearly warranted.  The Applicant had no misconduct of record that would rate an UOTHC discharge, and there was no evidence of unusual circumstances involving personal conduct or performance that would merit consideration for an Honorable characterization.  Since the Applicant had served only 172 days of active duty service when notified of discharge proceedings (26 Nov 2001 to 16 May 2002 - 172 days), an Uncharacterized discharge was proper and is the most appropriate characterization of service at discharge.  Accordingly, by a vote of 5-0, the NDRB determined that the characterization of service received at discharge - Uncharacterized - was proper and equitable at the time it was issued and remains proper and valid and that no change is warranted.  Relief denied.

In accordance with the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual (MARCORSEPMAN) (MCO P1900.16F), effective 1 September 2001 until Present, Paragraph 6207, HOMOSEXUAL CONDUCT, which was in effect at the time of the Applicant’s discharge, the Applicant’s in-service statement to her chain-of-command regarding her sexuality created a rebuttable presumption that she engaged in, or had the propensity to engage in, homosexual acts.  The Applicant chose not to challenge or to rebut this presumption.  Based on the statement made by the Applicant, her decision not to rebut any presumptions thereafter, and the commanding officer’s belief that the Applicant’s statements were credible, the Applicant was processed administratively for involuntary separation and was assigned a corresponding reentry code of RE-4.  At the time of discharge, processing for separation was mandatory in accordance with the MARCORSEPMAN and Department of Defense policy regarding the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law that was in effect.  Given the documents of record, the Applicant’s personal statement, and the commanding officer’s statement in the administrative separation endorsement, the NDRB determined that the Applicant’s separation due to Homosexual Admission, in accordance with paragraph 6207 of the MARCORSEPMAN, was a proper reflection of the reason for discharge and was equitable at the time it was issued.

Narrative Reason for Separation: In accordance with the 20 September 2011 Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel & Readiness) memorandum regarding the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” service discharge review boards should normally grant requests to change the narrative reason for discharge wherein Homosexual Admission was the only basis for discharge.  This memorandum further directs that the narrative reason for separation should normally change to Secretarial Authority with a corresponding Separation Code Designator (SPD code) of JFF1.  The Applicant’s record of service reflects that, at the time of discharge, there was no other reason for discharge contemplated other than homosexual admission and that no aggravating factors were involved.  Accordingly, the NDRB determined that relief in the form of a change to the narrative reason for separation is warranted; the narrative reason for discharge shall change to Secretarial Authority.  Additionally, the DD Form 214 shall be amended to reflect a corrected authority for discharge (MARCORSEPMAN paragraph 6214) with the corresponding Separation Code Designator of JFF1.

Reentry Code: In accordance with the Under Secretary of Defense (P&R) Memorandum (Repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell), dated 20 September 2011, service review boards should normally grant requests to change the reentry code to an immediately-eligible-to-reenter category if the discharge and corresponding reentry code was: (1) based solely on DADT or a similar policy in place prior to enactment of DADT; and (2), there were no aggravating factors in the record, such as misconduct.  As authorized by the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower & Reserve Affairs), the NDRB may change reentry codes as set forth in the USD (P&R) memorandum dated 20 September 2011.  The USD (P&R) policy memorandum stated that, if applicable, the new RE code should be RE-1J, however, this is an Air Force specific reentry code.  In accordance with the guidance and intent of the policy memorandum, the proper Marine Corps reentry code would be RE-1A (recommended and eligible for reenlistment).  The Applicant received an RE-4 reentry code.  Her service record does not document any nonjudicial or judicial punishments, however, the Applicant was determined to have fraudulently enlisted in the Marine Corps by concealing medical history that was required to be divulged upon processing for entry.  Additionally, the Applicant was being processed for administrative separation due to a physical condition not a disability that was interfering with her ability to effectively perform her duties.  As such, the NDRB determined that the command recommendation of “not recommended for reenlistment” was proper and warranted when issued, and that no change is warranted.

Summary:  After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, service record entries, and the administrative separation process, the NDRB found the discharge was proper and equitable at the time of discharge.  However, pursuant to Public Law 111-321, and in accordance with the guidance set forth in the Under Secretary of Defense (P&R) Memorandum (Repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell), dated 20 Sep 2011, the awarded characterization of service shall remain UNCHARACTERIZED (Entry Level Separation), but the narrative reason for separation shall change to SECRETARIAL AUTHORITY with a corresponding SPD code of JFF.  The reentry code shall remain RE-4.  The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing for a period of fifteen years from the date of the discharge.  The Applicant is directed to the Addendum for additional information.

ADDENDUM:  Information for the Applicant

Complaint Procedures:  If you believe 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:  After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application is received at the NDRB within 15 years of the Applicant’s 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.  There are veterans organizations such as the American Legion and the Disabled American Veterans that are willing to provide guidance to former service members in their efforts to obtain a discharge upgrade.  If a former member has been discharged for more than 15 years, has already been granted a personal appearance hearing or has otherwise exhausted their opportunities before the NDRB, the Applicant may petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR), 701 South Courthouse Road, Suite 1001, Arlington, VA 22204-2490 for further review.

Service Benefits:  The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determines eligibility for post-service benefits, not the NDRB.  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 NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment or educational opportunities.  Regulations limit the NDRB’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 BCNR can make changes to reenlistment codes.  Additionally, the NDRB 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 is processed subsequently for an administrative involuntary separation or is referred to a court martial for misconduct, the disability evaluation is suspended pending the outcome of the non-disability proceedings.  If the action includes either a punitive or administrative discharge for misconduct or for any basis wherein an Other Than Honorable discharge is authorized, 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 BCNR can grant this type of narrative reason change.

Automatic Upgrades - There is no law or regulation that provides for an unfavorable discharge to be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct subsequent to leaving naval service.

Post-Service Conduct:  The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge.  Outstanding post-service conduct, 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, is considered during Board reviews.  Documentation to support a post-service conduct upgrade includes, but is not limited to: a verifiable continuous employment record; marriage and children’s birth certificates (if applicable); character witness statements; documentation of community or church service; certification of non-involvement with civil authorities; evidence of financial stability or letters of good standing from banks, credit card companies, or other financial institutions; attendance at or completion of higher education (official transcripts); and documentation of a drug-free lifestyle.   The Applicant is advised that completion of these items alone does not guarantee the upgrade of an unfavorable discharge, as each discharge is reviewed by the Board on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate  in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member’s overall character.

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 NDRB 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