Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 1999_Marine | MD99-00698
Original file (MD99-00698.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-PFC, USMC
Docket No. MD99-00698

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 990426, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed general/under honorable conditions and the reason for the discharge be changed to hardship. The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. The applicant did not list any representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 000207. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, NDRB discerned no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the applicant’s service. The Board’s vote was unanimous that the character of the discharge shall not change. The discharge shall remain: UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Misconduct – Commission of a serious offense (all other) admin discharge board required but waived, authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6210.6.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

1.       The discharge is improper because of documentation was overlooked and pre-existing conditions were overlooked.
2.       I should have received a General discharge under honorable conditions with the reason being Hardship.
3.       As the board will see with the enclosed documentation from the original discharge that the Hardship discharge was overlooked.
4.       I seeked help from my chain of command which fell on deaf ears.
5.       I had the leave of absence time for my absence which I was denied.
6.       My leave of absence had a positive closure to the problems with my family back home.
7.       Also I was discharged 27Nov91 and was employed by Amtrak 9Jan92.
8.       Since my discharge I have given 7 ½ years of dedicated service to Amtrak where I have been promoted three times and am now a Locomotive Engineer.
Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
Copy of DD Form 214
 Medical evaluation from LCDR __, Staff Psychiatrist undated
Statement from GySgt V__ immediate supervisor dtd 17Sept91
Memo from LCDR B__, CHC dtd Jul 14, 1991
Letter from applicant’s mother dtd Aug 1, 1991
Medical evaluation and surgery orders for applicant’s mother dated July 15 1991/July 31 1991
Ltr from employer dtd Jan 8, 1992
Ltr from employer dtd May 17, 1993
Ltr from employer dtd Sept 20, 1994
       

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: USMC              None
         Inactive: USMCR(J)                900613 - 900826  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 900827               Date of Discharge: 911127

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 01 03 00
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 18                          Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 71

 Highest Rank: PFC

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Proficiency: 4.1 (4)                       Conduct: 3.1 (4)

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM, Rifle Sharpshooter Badge

Days of Unauthorized Absence: 33

Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance):

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Misconduct-Commission of a serious offense (all other) admin discharge board required but waived, authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6210.6.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :


910712:  Applicant to unauthorized absence status from 2ndMaintBn, Camp Lejuene, N.C.
910714:  Evaluation from LCDR B__, CHC USNR,U.S.S. Constitution, Charlestown, Ma. stating that the applicant contacted him personally on 13 Jul 91 to discuss family problems and fainting spells. Recommended issues be dealt with in an immediate fashion.

910715:  Applicant had medical exam, Boston, Ma.

910814:  Applicant from unauthorized absence status, surrendered to unit. (33 days).

911028:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense as evidenced by your unauthorized absence from 12 July 1991 to 14 August 1991.
911028:          Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights except the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation.

911028:  Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense. The factual basis for this recommendation was the UA from 910712 to 910814.

911120:  SJA review determined the case sufficient in law and fact.

911121:  GCMCA [CG, 2d FSSG] directed the applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 911127 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense (A and B). The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (C). After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (D and E).

In the applicant’s issues, the Board found nothing to substantiate his allegations. The Board found that the applicant had a medical history of bloody noses, and back pain, neither of which were severe enough to warrant a discharge of any kind. Relief denied.

There is nothing in the applicant’s record to substantiate the statement that the applicant requested a hardship discharge. Only 2 letters in his record indicate a problem may exist at home, one from the applicant’s mother and one from a Navy chaplain. Both of these letters were written while the applicant was in a deserter status. Relief denied.

 The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge (B, Part IV). However, there is no law or regulation which provides that an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time, or good conduct in the civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Normally, to permit relief, an error or injustice must have been found to have existed during the period of enlistment in question. Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent that 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. The applicant provided three letters from his employer as documentation of his post-service performance. The applicant's efforts need to be more encompassing than those provided. The applicant should have produced evidence of continuing educational pursuits, a verifiable employment record, documentation of community service, certification of non-involvement with civil authorities and proof of his not using drugs in order for consideration for clemency based on post-service conduct. At this time the applicant has not provided sufficient documentation of good character and conduct. Therefore no relief will be granted. He is highly encouraged to request a personal appearance hearing provided the application is received within 15 years from the date of discharge. Relief denied

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A. Paragraph 6210, Misconduct The Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, ( MCO P1900.16D), effective 27 Jun 89 until 17 Aug 95.

B. 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 [ e.g., Article 86, unauthorized absence for more than 30 days].
C. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 2, AUTHORITY/POLICY FOR DEPARTMENTAL DISCHARGE REVIEW.

D. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 9, paragraph 9.2, PROPRIETY OF THE DISCHARGE.

E. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 9, paragraph 9.3, EQUITY OF THE DISCHARGE.

PART IV - INFORMATION FOR THE APPLICANT
If you believe that 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 Directive 1332.28, you may submit a complaint in accordance with Enclosure (5) of that Directive. You should read Enclosure (5) of the Directive 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 obtain a copy of DoD Directive 1332.28 by writing to:
                  DA Military Review Boards Agency
                  Management Information and Support Directorate
                  Armed Forces Reading Room
                  Washington, D.C. 20310-1809

The names, and votes of the members of the Board are recorded on the original of this document and may be obtained from the service records by writing to:

                  Naval Council of Personnel Boards
                  Attn: Naval Discharge Review Board
                  Washington Navy Yard
                  720 Kennon Street SE Rm 309
                  Washington, D.C. 20374-5023     


Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00892

    Original file (ND01-00892.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The discharge shall remain: UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Misconduct – commission of a serious offense, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600. I am trying to get a house and a job with the Post Office and with this on my record, I regret it every day! Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), effective 15 Aug 91 until 04 Mar 93, Article 3630600, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT – COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE.B.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00456

    Original file (ND02-00456.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00456 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020225, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. On May 4 th I was informed that I was not going to be transferred and that all request where denied.My dad's condition was serious so I took the matter upon myself to leave my duty station on May 6 th 2000 and return home to provide care for my father. I received a General Discharge (under honorable conditions) and...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004 Marine | MD04-00131

    Original file (MD04-00131.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requested the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Issues, as stated Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:Issue 1: “My discharge states that I was discharged because of a commission of a serious offense based on my arrest by civilian authorities on 910426 for criminal conspiracy. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00713

    Original file (ND99-00713.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND99-00713 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 990503, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. In the acknowledgement letter to the applicant, he was informed that the naval discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. 970612: BUPERS recommended to the Secretary of the Navy (SECNAV) that applicant be discharged with a general (under honorable...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00465

    Original file (ND01-00465.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Naval discharge Review Board (NDRB) also advised that the board first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance. Applicant did not elect to submit an appeal.91102x: Applicant provided Statement regarding the adverse performance evaluation for period 90OCT01 to 91SEP17.911105: Commander, Fleet Training Group, GTMO Bay notified applicant of intended recommendation for discharge under Other Than Honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a Pattern of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600081

    Original file (ND0600081.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. They denied it and when I came back I was on unauthorized absence for 6 days. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant’s DD Form 214 Twenty-eight pages from Applicant’s service record

  • USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-01504

    Original file (MD03-01504.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Decision A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20040617. Sense the Due process of law had not yet been processed and had not been either been found innocent or guilty by my peers in a court of law on the date the Unite States Marine Corps decide unjust fully Other than Honorable discharge me. (His discharge was) not Only Unjust but unconstitutional as well.” After a very careful review of the Applicant’s record, the board found nothing that would support the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00291

    Original file (ND02-00291.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00291 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020123, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. Despite the applicant’s years of honorable service, awards and high performance and behavior average markings, the Board found that the applicant was properly and equitably discharged for misconduct. Relief is therefore denied.The applicant’s discharge characterization accurately reflects his service to his country.

  • USMC | DRB | 1999_Marine | MD99-00626

    Original file (MD99-00626.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (D and E).In response to the applicant’s issue 1, the Board found that there is nothing in the applicant’s service record nor did the applicant provide sufficient evidence to show that he was being processed for a hardship discharge. In response to the applicant’s request to have the narrative reason for discharge changed to...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00098

    Original file (ND99-00098.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 971030 with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A). After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (C and D).The applicant desires to upgrade his discharge in order to obtain Montgomery GI Bill...