Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 1999_Marine | MD99-00796
Original file (MD99-00796.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-LCpl, USMC
Docket No. MD99-00796

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 990520, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to General/under Honorable conditions. The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. The applicant did not designate a representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 000525. 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 CONDITIONS OTHER THAN HONORABLE/MISCONDUCT, authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6210.7.


PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

 1. I believe my discharge was improper as it pertained to only one incident, which involved civilian penalties. To my knowledge, my military record has always been in good standing. I am requesting a General Discharge.

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
Copy of DD Form 214

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: None
         Inactive: USMCR(J)                951209 - 960122  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 960123               Date of Discharge: 970725

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 01 06 03
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 19                          Years Contracted: 4

Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 86

 Highest Rank: LCpl

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Proficiency: 4.3 (3)                       Conduct: 3.97 (3)

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: Marksman Rifle Badge

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

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

UNDER CONDITIONS OTHER THAN HONORABLE /MISCONDUCT, authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6210.7

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

The applicant’s separation package was destroyed by Headquarters Battalion, Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps, Henderson Hall and the applicant’s service record is incomplete. A chronology of events leading to his discharge can not be reconstructed. The NDRB attempted to obtain his discharge record on several occasions but was unsuccessful.
 970220:  Applicant's recommendation for promotion to LCPL for 970301 promotion period because of UA charges and pending civil trial.

970725:  The applicant was discharged with an Other Than Honorable for misconduct.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 970725 under conditions other than honorable for misconduct due to a civilian conviction (A). The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (B). 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).

In the applicant’s issue 1, the Board determined this issue is without merit. The applicant claims he only had one incident that involved civilian penalties and his record was in good standing. The Board was unable to evaluate the applicant’s record for propriety or equity due to the entire discharge package was missing. The Board must assume regularity in regards to the government’s role in executing the applicant’s discharge and assume that all procedures were followed in accordance with Marine Corps regulations. If the applicant can provide documentation to show the there was an error of propriety or equity he may forward that information to the NDRB for further consideration. The applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received at the NDRB prior to fifteen years after his discharge date. Legal counsel is recommended but not required. Documentation to support any claims of post-service conduct are a must to receive post-service clemency. The discharge was proper and equitable. Relief denied.

 Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A. Paragraph 6210, Misconduct of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, ( MCO P1900.16D), effective 18 Aug 95 until Present.

B. 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 view DoD Directive 1332.28 and other Decisional Documents by going online at “ afls14.jag.af.mil ”.

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
                  720 Kennon Street SE Rm 309
                  Washington Navy Yard DC 20374-5023      


Similar Decisions

  • USMC | DRB | 2001_Marine | MD01-00353

    Original file (MD01-00353.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: USMC 930629 - 961126 HON Inactive: USMCR(J) 921030 - 930628 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 961127 Date of Discharge: 990701 Length of Service (years, months, days):Active: 02 07 05 Inactive: None This Board is...

  • USMC | DRB | 2000_Marine | MD00-00295

    Original file (MD00-00295.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD00-00295 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 991228, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. I wasn't given proper representation of counsel, upon signing the paperwork for my discharge at no time did I understand I was signing a waiver of my rights to appeal to a discharge board.2. There was no rights violation and no basis for relief.In response to applicant’s issues 5-7, the Board reviewed the applicant’s...

  • USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-00649

    Original file (MD03-00649.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable and the reason for the discharge be changed. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the Applicant’s service and reason for discharge was discovered by the NDRB. 911217: GCMCA [Commanding General, 2d Marine Division] directed the Applicant's discharge under...

  • USMC | DRB | 2001_Marine | MD01-00993

    Original file (MD01-00993.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Thankfully the court agreed and I was sentenced to probation and discharged from the USMC. 920129: GCMCA [Commanding General, 2d Marine Aircraft Wing] directed the applicant's discharge under conditions other than honorable by reason of misconduct due to civilian conviction. However, the NDRB is authorized to consider outstanding post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge, to the extent that such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the...

  • USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-00986

    Original file (MD03-00986.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the Applicant’s service was discovered by the NDRB. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the...

  • USMC | DRB | 1999_Marine | MD99-01091

    Original file (MD99-01091.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD99-01091 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 990810, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to Honorable. 970502: Commanding officer recommended discharge General (under Honorable conditions) for the Convenience of the government due to a personality disorder, based upon a diagnosed personality disorder as evidenced by psychological evaluation. PART IV - INFORMATION FOR THE APPLICANT If you believe that the decision in...

  • USMC | DRB | 2000_Marine | MD00-00193

    Original file (MD00-00193.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    870727: Applicant to confinement (civilian authorities).870820: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under condition other than honorable by reason of misconduct due to civilian conviction.870914: Applicant advised of his rights and having consulted 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.870917: Commanding officer recommended discharge...

  • USMC | DRB | 1999_Marine | MD99-00507

    Original file (MD99-00507.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: USMC None Inactive: USMCR(J) 910708 - 920705 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 920706 Date of Discharge: 950803 Length of Service (years, months, days):Active: 03 00 28 Inactive: None 950720: GCMCA [Commander, Marine...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004 Marine | MD04-01000

    Original file (MD04-01000.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. The NDRB is authorized, however, to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge 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. As of this time, the Applicant has not provided any documentation for the Board to consider.

  • USMC | DRB | 1999_Marine | MD99-00953

    Original file (MD99-00953.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :950310: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: On or about 0701 to 0800 10Mar95 was UA from appointed place of duty.Awarded forfeiture of $232.00 per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duties for 14 days. 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).The applicant introduced no decisional issues for...