DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
ELP
Docket No.
14 January
5955-01
200 2
From:
To:
Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval
Secretary of the Navy
Records
Subj:
REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF
Ref:
Encl:
(a) 10 U.S.C.1552
(b) MCSM 6311
(1)
(2)
(3)
DD Form 149 w/attachments
Case Summary
Subject's Naval Record
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a
1.
former enlisted member of the Navy, applied to this Board
requesting, in effect, that his naval record be corrected to
show he was not reduced to LCPL (E-3) upon discharge, but was
separated as a SGT (E-5).
The Board, consisting of Messrs. Hogue, Ivins, and McBride
2.
reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on
9 January 2002 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that
the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the
available evidence of record.
by the Board consisted of the enclosures, naval records, and
applicable statutes, regulations and policies.
Documentary material considered
The Board, having reviewed all the facts of record
3.
pertaining to Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice
finds as follows:
a.
Before applying to this Board, Petitioner exhausted all
administrative remedies available under existing law and
regulations within the Department of the Navy.
b.
Although it appears that Petitioner's application to
the Board was not filed in a timely manner, it is in the
interest of justice to waive the statute of limitations and
review the application on its merits.
C .
Petitioner reenlisted in the Marine Corps on 1 February
1988 for four years as a SGT (E-5).
At the time of his
reenlistment, he had completed nearly eight years of prior
active service.
d.
Petitioner served without incident until 22 June 1989
when he received nonjudicial punishment
of failure to go to his appointed place of duty.
imposed consisted of forfeitures of $600 per month for two
months, suspended for a period of six months; and 30 days of
extra duty.
(NJP) for two instances
Punishment
e.
During the four month period from August to November
1989, Petitioner was formally counseled on four occasions
regarding his being placed on weight control, failure to make
satisfactory progress during the past two months in the command
weight control program,
two times, and negligent performance of duty by certifying fund
availability for travel in excess of authorized funds.
failure to go to appointed place of duty
f.
On 2 November 1989 Petitioner was notified that he was
He was advised of his procedural
being recommended for discharge under other than honorable
conditions (UOTHC) by reason of misconduct due to minor
disciplinary infractions.
rights, declined to consult with legal counsel and waived right
to present his case to an administrative discharge board (ADB).
Thereafter, the commanding officer recommended discharge UOTHC
by reason of misconduct due to minor disciplinary infractions.
The discharge authority approved the recommendation and
Petitioner was so discharged on 28 November 1989, and
administratively reduced in rank to LCPL (E-3).
g-
Reference (b) states that when a Marine serving in pay
grade E-4 or above is administratively separated with an other
than honorable characterization of service, the Marine shall be
administratively reduced to pay grade E-3.
h.
On 6 April 2001 the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB)
reviewed Petitioner's case and concluded there was both
impropriety and inequity in the characterization of his service.
NDRB noted that he received only one NJP and three adverse
counseling entries during the enlistment in question and opined
that these offenses were offset by Petitioner's otherwise
The
creditable service as reflected in his fitness reports.
NDRB upgraded Petitioner discharge to Honorable and changed the
reason to Secretarial Authority.
advised Petitioner it did not have the authority to restore his
rank and advised him to petition this Board.
On 13 July 2001 the NDRB
2
CONCLUSION:
Since the record has been corrected to show Petitioner
Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the
Board concludes that Petitioner's request warrants favorable
action.
was honorably discharged,
no longer applicable.
record should be corrected to show that he was not administra-
tively reduced in rank to LCPL (E-3), but was honorably
discharged in the rank of SGT.
(b) are
The Board accordingly concludes that the
the requirements of reference
RECOMMENDATION:
a.
That Petitioner's naval record be corrected to show
that Petitioner was honorably discharged on 28 November 1989 in
the rank of SGT vice LCPL now of record.
This should include
the issuance of a new DD Form 214 and an Honorable Discharge
Certificate.
b.
That a copy of the Report of Proceedings be filed in
Petitioner's naval record.
It is certified that a quorum was present at the Board's
4.
review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and
complete record of the Board's proceedings in the above entitled
matter.
ROBERT D. ZSALMAN
Recorder
Pursuant to the delegation of authority set out in Section 6
5.
(e) of the revised Procedures of the Board for Correction of
Naval Records (32 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 723.6
(e)) and having assured compliance with its provisions, it is
hereby announced that the foregoing corrective action, taken
under the authority of reference (a),
Board on behalf of the Secretary of the Navy.
has been approved by the
Executive
r
3
USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0501354
Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant’s DD Form 214 (Copy 4) Ltr from the Veterans of Foreign Wars, dtd July 5, 2005 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: USMCR (DEP) 19900417 – 19900424 COG Active: None Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 19900425 Date of Discharge: 19930108 Length of Service (years, months,...
USMC | DRB | 2000_Marine | MD00-00694
Your performance to date has been unsatisfactory, and you have failed to meet both your monthly weight reduction goals and Marine Corps weight control standards.] In response to issue 2, the Board found no such Marine Corps Directive in relation to the circumstances of the applicant’s case which would have resulted in a medical discharge.In response to issue 3, the Board found that the applicant had received counseling for drinking and driving, inability to maintain funds to cover personal...
USMC | DRB | 2001_Marine | MD01-00073
In view of your counseling entry on 891018 in addition to your recent performance and this violation of the UCMJ, I am vacating your forfeiture awarded on 890622, of $600.00 pay per month for 2 months] Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued. On 890622, you received NJP violation of article 86, UCMJ (Failure to be at appointed place of duty). After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 01915-00
1915-00 14 August 2000 From: To: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF Ref: Encl: (a) 10 U.S.C.1552 (1) DD Form 149 w/attachments (2) Case Summary (3) Subject's Naval Record Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a 1. former enlisted member of the United States Marine Corps, applied to this Board requesting, in effect, that his reenlistment code be changed. Ms. Hardbower reviewed Petitioner's allegations of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 05224-05
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the Marine Corps, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that her naval record be corrected by changing her reenlistment code and restoring her to corporal (CPL; E-4).2. The Board, consisting of Mr. Mr. and Ms. -reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 17 August 2005 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken...
USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-00938
MD03-00938 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030430. The Petitioner never at any time ‘just left” California or his responsibilities with the Marine Corps Reserves. Based upon the above, the Petitioner respectfully requests that this Honorable Board set aside said administrative discharge, correct petitioner’s DD-214 to reflect a discharge characterization of Honorable, reflect a separation code of FND (unqualified resignation) and a reenlistment...
USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0600128
Applicant chose not to make a statement.981029: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: At VMFA-323, MAG-11, 3d MAW, PFC D_(Applicant) was UA from his appointed place of duty (S-3) to weigh in and talk to Commanding Officer at 0800 on 16 Oct 98. The Applicant’s record fits the criteria for administrative separation on the basis of unsatisfactory performance and relief is not warranted. The complaint procedure does not permit a challenge of the merits of the decision; it is designed solely...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04176-02
Petitioner not be reinstated in the Marine Corps and states, in part, as follows: that despite the opinion of the The opinion also recommends that sta,ted above, Petitioner was recommended for (The governing regulations) authorizes separation for both sexual harassment and fraternization following (an ADB) process and approval of the Commanding General. Whether separation was by reason of sexual harassment, fraternization, or both, is irrelevant since either or all are permissible bases to...
USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-00535
MD03-00535 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030211. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Documentation Only the Applicant’s service and medical records were reviewed, as the Applicant did not provide additional documentation for the Board to consider.
USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0900040
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 previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member’s overall character.The Applicant provided evidence of employment since November 2006, documentation of vocational training and education, and several character...