ex-LCpl, USMCR

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received:  20150113
Characterization of Service Received:  UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS
Narrative Reason for Discharge: MISCONDUCT
Reenlistment Code:  RE-4
Authority for Discharge:  MARCORSEPMAN 6210.6 [COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE]

Applicant’s Request:	Characterization change to: HONORABLE OR GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)
	Narrative Reason change to: NONE REQUESTED
	
Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive:	NONE		Active:	NONE

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment:  20081002	Age at Enlistment:  18
Period of Enlistment:  8 Years  0 Months
Date of Discharge:  20140512	Highest Rank:  LANCE CORPORAL
Length of Service: 
Inactive:    02  Year(s)  09  Month(s)  05  Day(s)
Active:      02  Year(s)  10  Month(s)  03  Day(s)
Education Level:  12	AFQT:  66
MOS:  0612
Proficiency/Conduct Marks (# of occasions):  4.1 (NFIR) / 4.0 (NFIR)	Fitness Reports:  NOT APPLICABLE

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	Rifle EX NDSM GWOTSM MCRM Rifle EX

Periods of CONF:  NONE

NJP:  1

- 20140111:	Article 86 (Absence without leave; SNM absent place of duty 20131207 to 20131208.)
	Awarded: RIR   Suspended:  NONE
SCM:  NONE

SPCM:  NONE

CIVIL ARREST:  3

- 20101108:	Charges:  Shoplifting

- 20121213:	Charges:  Aggravated Assault

- 20130904:	Charges:  Stalking

CC:  NFIR

Retention Warning Counseling:  1

- 20140111:	For deficiencies leading to NJP on 20140111 for Article 86.

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 P1900.16E), 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 120a, Stalking.

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

Applicant’s Issues

1.	The Applicant contends that his UA charge was improper because he had contacted his supervisor and provided details of a family emergency, and he found out later that the supervisor had gone UA as well so he could not verify the excuse.  
2.   The Applicant contends that his misconduct was due to an arrest for domestic violence that was later dismissed, and he was told that no disciplinary actions were being taken against him when he later found out that the command was separating him without offering a trial.  

Decision

Date:  20150416	        DOCUMENTARY REVIEW	Location: Washington D.C.	 Representation: NONE

By a vote of 5-0 the Characterization shall remain UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS.
By a vote of 5-0 the Narrative Reason shall remain MISCONDUCT.

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 completed a thorough review of the circumstances that led to his discharge and the discharge process to ensure his discharge met the pertinent standards of equity and propriety.  The Applicant’s record of service included one 6105 counseling warning and one nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ):  Article 86 (Absence without leave ).  Based on the offenses committed by the Applicant, his command administratively processed him for separation.  The Applicant was provided notification of his separation by administrative board procedure by certified mail.  The applicant did not respond to the notification and the command separated him in absentia.  

Issue 1:  (Decisional) (Propriety)  RELIEF NOT WARRANTED.  The Applicant contends that his UA charge was improper because he had contacted his supervisor and provided details of a family emergency, and he found out later that the supervisor had gone UA as well so he could not verify the excuse.  The government enjoys a presumption of regularity in the conduct of its affairs.  The Applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support his issue.  The Applicant did not provide any details or documentation concerning the impropriety of the UA charge.  The only UA documented in the Applicant’s record was from 7 to 8 December 2013 which resulted in NJP.  The applicant would have been able to present his case during the NJP on 11 January 2014.  He was found guilty but did indicate that he desired to exercise his right of appeal.  The service record does not contain any documentation of an appeal.  The Applicant signed a retention warning that same day indicating that the command intended to retain him barring any additional misconduct.  In the 26 March 2014 separation notification, the basis for separation was listed as Commission of a Serious Offense and Unsatisfactory Participation in the Ready Reserve.  The Commanding Officer remarks in the recommendation for discharge letter to the separation authority that the Applicant had incurred 17 unexcused absences between May 2013 and April 2014 with no attempts to rectify his status.  The service record documentation indicates the Applicant was not separated for a single incident where there may have been miscommunication over his whereabouts, but that he was separated for repeated missed drills.  Relief denied.

Issue 2:  (Decisional) (Propriety/Equity)  RELIEF NOT WARRANTED.  The Applicant contends that his misconduct was due to an arrest for domestic violence that was later dismissed, and he was told that no disciplinary actions were being taken against him when he later found out that the command was separating him without offering a trial.  The commission of a serious offense does not require adjudication by nonjudicial, judicial proceedings, or civilian conviction; however, the offense must be substantiated by a preponderance of evidence.  The Applicant was notified of separation due to commission of a serious offense based on three civil arrests.  One was for shoplifting on 04 November 2010, another was for aggravated assault on 12 December 2012, and the last was for stalking on 04 September 2013.  The Applicant was provided the opportunity to present his case before an administrative board, but did not respond to the separation notification sent via certified mail.  The last documented presence at drill was 11 February 2014 and the command made numerous attempts to contact him via personal visits, certified mail, and phone calls.  Relief denied.

Summary:  After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, service record entries, and discharge process, the Board found the discharge was proper and equitable at the time of discharge.  Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall remain UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS and the narrative reason for separation shall remain MISCONDUCT.  The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing for a period of fifteen years from the date of his 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:  Effective 6 February 2015, the NDRB is authorized to change a NDRB Applicant’s Reenlistment Code if related to an accompanying change in discharge characterization or narrative, but this authority is strictly limited to those cases where an applicant’s narrative reason or characterization of discharge is changed and that change warrants revision of the previously issued reenlistment code.  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