ex-, USMC

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received:  20140723
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)	20080804 - 20080826  	Active:	 20080827 - 20111027  

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment:  20111028	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Months
Date of Discharge:  20140214	Highest Rank:  
Length of Service:    Year(s)    Month(s)  18  Day(s)
Education Level:  	AFQT:  32
MOS:  3043
Proficiency/Conduct Marks (# of occasions):   () /  ()	Fitness Reports:  

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	Rifle        ACM (2 stars) LoA, MM, CoA

Periods of CONF:  

NJP:  

- 20130304:	Article  (Failure to obey order or regulation) 3 specifications
	Awarded:    RED MCMAP BELT  Suspended:   [vacated on 20130819, due to violation of Article 86 (Absence without leave)]

- 20130819:	Article  (Absence without leave)
	Awarded:     Suspended:  

- 20131024:	Article  (Absence without leave) 2 specifications
	Awarded:    Suspended:  

- 20131219:	Article  (Absence without leave)
	Article  (Failure to obey order or regulation)
	Article  (False official statements)
	Awarded:     Suspended:    [vacated on 20140113, due to violation of Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation)]

SCM:  	

SPCM:  	

CC:  

Retention Warning Counseling:  

- 20121024:	For the following deficiencies: violation of Article 86 (Absence without leave), in that Sgt M, while assigned to Rifle Range 4-13, overslept for the range and was subsequently dropped.

- 20130304:	For the following deficiency violation of Article 92 x3 (Failure to obey order or regulation), on or about 20130219 you failed to report on time to a directed training event. On or about 20130212 and 20130213 you failed to report to work on time.

- 20130713:	For the following deficiency: violation of Article 86 (Absence without leave), and Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation), in that you have failed on numerous occasions to report in on time to your appointed place of duty.

- 20130820:	For the following deficiency: violation of Article 86 (Absence without leave), on or about 20130801 without authority failed to report at 1000 to your appointed place of duty.

- 20131219:	For the following deficiencies: violation of Article 86 (Absence without leave), on or about 20131120 was absent without proper authorization from his extra duties that was a result of NJP awarded on 20131024. Violation of Article 92 (Absence without leave), on or about 20131120 failed to obey a lawful order by not completing his extra duty that was a result of NJP awarded 20131024. Violation of Article 107 (False official statements), on or about 20131120 with the intent to deceive, falsified his extra duty orders to reflect him completing the required 2 hours which was false.

- 20140107:	For the following deficiencies: violation of Article 86 x2 (Absence without leave). During your scheduled restriction muster time at 1100 on 20140102, you showed up 21 minutes late to the OOD. On 20140103, you showed up to the OOD in the wrong uniform of the day, which caused you to be late for work again.

- 20140115:	For the following deficiencies: violation of your restriction rules and regulations dated 20131230 through 20140118. On 20140115, you were 35 minutes late for your check in with the OOD.

- 20140117:	For the following deficiency: violation of Article 91 (Insubordinate conduct toward warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer), Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation), Article 93 (Cruelty and maltreatment), and Article 134 (General article). During the normal work day on 20140117 you did at or about 1220 solicit Sgt B to seek attendance at a less than reputable Gentlemen’s Club that is located off base.

- 20140123:	For the following deficiency: violation of your restriction regulations dated 20140119 through 20140202. On 20140123, you were caught by SgtMaj D in the OOD hut sleeping on the rack just before 0800. Your first check in at 0700 and is when your work day begins.

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

The NDRB did note administrative error(s) on the original DD Form 214:

	 Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, should read:  “MARINE CORPS GOOD CONDUCT MEDAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE SERVICE MEDAL, AFGHANISTAN CAMPAIGN MEDAL (W/2 STARS), GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM SERVICE MEDAL, SEA SERVICE DEPLOYMENT RIBBON, NAVY AND MARINE CORPS OVERSEAS SERVICE RIBBON, NATO MEDAL-ISAF AFGHANISTAN, LETTER OF APPRECIATION, MERITORIOUS MAST, CERTIFICATE OF APPRECIATION, SHARPSHOOTER RIFLE QUALIFICATION BADGE”

The NDRB will recommend to the Commandant of the Marine Corps, MMSB-13, that the DD 214 be corrected as appropriate.

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.  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.

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

Applicant’s Issues

1.	The Applicant contends his discharge is inequitable because his service record warrants an Honorable characterization of service.

Decision

Date:  20150108		Location: Washington D.C.	 Representation: 

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

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 Board 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 Board did complete a thorough review of the circumstances that led to  discharge and the discharge process to ensure  discharge met the pertinent standards of equity and propriety.  The Applicant’s record of service included nine 6105 counseling warnings, and   for  of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ):  Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation; 3 specifications), Article 86 (Absence without leave; 3 specifications), and Article 107 (False official statements).  Based on the offense(s) committed by the Applicant,  command administratively processed  for separation.  When notified of administrative separation processing using the  procedure, the Applicant   rights to consult with a qualified counsel, submit a written statement, and request an administrative board.   

:  (Decisional) ()  .  The Applicant contends his discharge is inequitable because his service record warrants an Honorable characterization of service.  The Applicant did have a period of service from August 2008 until February 2011 that is reflected on his DD Form 214 as Honorable.  However, the Applicant reenlisted in the Marine Corps in February 2011, and during this period of service the Applicant was found guilty at four separate NJPs for misconduct and violations of the UCMJ.  Based on the Applicant’s record of service from February 2011 until his administrative discharge on 14 February 2014, the NDRB determined the Applicant engaged in conduct involving one or more acts or omissions that constituted a significant departure from the conduct expected of members of the Naval Service, and the awarded characterization of service was warranted.  Relief denied.

Summary:  After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service,  record entries, and discharge process, the Board found   Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall remain UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS and the narrative reason for separation shall remain PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT.

The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing for a period of fifteen years from the date of  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