ex-, USMC

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received:  20150624
Characterization of Service Received:   
Narrative Reason for Discharge:    
Reenlistment Code:  
Authority for Discharge:   MARCORSEPMAN 

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

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive:	USMCR (DEP)	20080510 - 20090119  	Active:	

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment:  20090120	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Months
Date of Discharge:  20120412	Highest Rank:  
Length of Service:    Year(s)    Month(s)  23  Day(s)
Education Level:  	AFQT:  86
MOS:  0352
Proficiency/Conduct Marks (# of occasions):   /       Fitness Reports:  

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	Rifle    

Periods of UA/CONF:  

NJP:  

- 20100628:	Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation), Operate his motorcycle and was involved in an accident prior to completing all required training in accordance with MCO 5100 19E at or Pittsylvania, Va.
	Awarded:     Suspended:  

- 20110726:	Article 134 (General article), Wrongfully and without authority wear upon his uniform, the Combat Action Ribbon, Navy Unit Citation, Iraqi Campaign Medal, Afghanistan Campaign Medal, Good Conduct 
	Awarded:     Suspended:  

SCM:  

SPCM:  

CC:  

Retention Warning Counseling:  

- 20100611:	For poor judgment. Specifically purchasing a motorcycle without notifying the chain of command or scheduling all required training IAW MCO 5100.19E.

- 20100628:	For Company level NJP for violating Article 92 of the UCMJ. Specifically, Operating a motorcycle without completing all required training IAW MCO 5100.19E and being involved in an accident. 

- 20110726:	For wrongfully amd without authority wear upon his uniform, the Combat Action Ribbon, Navy Unit Citation, Iraqi Campaign Medal, Afghanistan Campaign Medal, Good Conduct

- 20120124:	For mental health condition not being a disability, specifically a medical diagnosis adjustment disorder, Fraudulent Entry into, and Pattern of Misconduct for NJP’s on 20100628 and 20110726. 

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:	

Types of Witnesses Who Testified

	Expert:		Character:	

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 seeks an upgrade to enhance employment and educational opportunities.
2.    The Applicant contends his discharge should be upgraded because he was not afforded the opportunity to request an official board while on active duty due to his characterization being General (Under Honorable Conditions).
3.    The Applicant contends his discharge was inequitable because other servicemembers were punished less harshly for similar misconduct.  
4.	The Applicant contends that his notifications for separation are inaccurate because he feels that his service does not reflect a pattern of misconduct and there was not any evidence brought forth to prove his fraudulent enlistment.

Decision

Date:  20150924		Location: Washington D.C.	 Representation: 

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

Discussion

As a result of a MENTAL HEALTH DIAGNOSIS that could have impacted the Applicant’s discharge, and in accordance with U.S. Code, Title X, Section 1553 (e)(2), the Naval Discharge Review Board included a member who is a clinical psychologist or psychiatrist, or a physician with special training on mental health disorder.  The Applicant’s service record documents the Applicant was under the care of multiple mental health speacialists for a preexisting condition, not a disability (personality disorder) while serving in the armed forces.  After an exhaustive review, the NDRB determined that the Applicant’s condition, not a disability (personality disorder) did not mitigate the Applicant’s misconduct.

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  6105 counseling warnings,   for  of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ):  Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation) and Article 134 (General article).  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 and submit a written statement.  The Applicant waived  right to request an administrative board.

:  (Decisional) ()  .  The Applicant seeks an upgrade to enhance employment and 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.

:  (Decisional) ()  .  The Applicant contends his discharge should be upgraded because he was not afforded the opportunity to request an official board while on active duty due to his characterization being General (Under Honorable Conditions).  The record clearly shows that the Applicant was notified on 10 February 2012 for administrative separation processing which the least favorable characterization of service he may receive is Other Than Honoraoble conditions.  However, his Commanding Officer recommended a General (Under Honorable Conditions) characterization of service.  The Applicant consulted with qualified counsel and submitted written statements in rebuttal to his separation.  The Applicant was provided the opportunity to present his case before an administrative board, but waived that right, thus accepting the discharge recommended in the letter of notification.  As such, the NDRB determined that this issue was without merit and does not provide a foundation upon which the NDRB can grant relief.  Relief denied.

:  (Decisional) ()  .  The Applicant contends his discharge was inequitable because other servicemembers were punished less harshly for similar misconduct.  While other members of his unit may have been charged with the same or similar offenses, each case must stand on its own merits.  The Commanding Officer is allowed to consider matters for extenuation and mitigation unique to each individual.  Therefore no two cases, no matter how similar, are guaranteed to receive the same punishment.  Relief denied.

Issue 4:  (Decisional) ()  .  The Applicant contends that his notifications for separation are inaccurate because he feels that his service does not reflect a pattern of misconduct and there was not any evidence brought forth to prove his fraudulent enlistment.  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.  There is no evidence in the record, nor has the evidence produced by the Applicant support the contention that his notifications for separation are inaccurate.   The Applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity in this case.  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 GENERAL (UNDER 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  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, or http://www.secnav.navy.mil/mra/bcnr/Pages/default.aspx 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