Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 1999_Marine | MD99-01059
Original file (MD99-01059.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-LCpl, USMC
Docket No. MD99-01059

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 990728, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. 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 000424. 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 HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL)/Misconduct – Minor disciplinary infractions (administrative discharge board required but waived), authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6210.2.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

1. I wish to go back in the reserves if not able now to go back full duty. I am now 28 & single parent of 3 kids.

2. Need to go back to college to get a future, chance to survive, 1 yr Central Texas, 1 yr CCAN, 3 yr MCI USMC

3. Years of experience in professions possible needed. Unit diary clerk, Training NCO

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
Copy of Declaration of status of dependents dated August 24, 1995

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: None
         Inactive: USMCR(J)                880330 - 880613  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 880614               Date of Discharge: 910809

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 03 01 26
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 17                          Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 71

 Highest Rank: LCpl

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Proficiency: 4.3 (8)                       Conduct: 3.9 (8)

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: Letter of Appreciation, MUC, SSDR with 1 Star, NDSM

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: 1

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

UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL)/Misconduct-Minor disciplinary infractions (administrative discharge board required but waived), authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6210.2.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

890316:  Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct. [Lack of responsibility, attention to detail as evidenced by failing to remain during field day and failing bks insp 3 times. Lack of integrity and failure to follow instructions as evidenced by the fact that after being told to stand SDC for a Marine assigned a working party you used half truths ad straight lies and told the Marine to stand his own watch.] Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.

 890424:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86:
 Specification: Unauthorized absence at 1300, 15Apr89.
Specification: Unauthorized absence at 0900, 17Apr89.
Violation of UCMJ, Article 91:
Specification: Willfully disobeyed lawful order on 13Apr89.
Awarded forfeiture of $200.00 per month for 1 month, correctional custody for 30 days, reduction to Pvt. Not appealed.
890705:  Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct. [For failing to report to the rifle range at the prescribed date and time. For failure to shave facial hairs from face. For removing utility jacket and cover outside of work area.] Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.

 890927:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86:
 Specification: Absent from appointed place of duty.
Awarded forfeiture of $349.00 per month for 2 months, extra duties for 6 days. Forfeiture suspended for 6 months. Not appealed.
890927:  Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct. [Consuming alcohol beverages (wine) in the passenger area of a vehicle, under the age of 21.] Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.

891031:  Applicant will be promoted on 1Nov89 due to his exceptional performance.

 900227:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92:
 Specification: Disobeyed an order from SSgt to remain in the confines of his barracks room.
Awarded restriction for 30 days and extra duties for 45 days, reduction to Pvt. Reduction suspended for 6 months. Appealed. Appeal denied 900309.
910612:  Applicant to unauthorized absence 1641, 12June91.

 910614:  Applicant from unauthorized absence 1120, 14Jun91 (2 days/surrendered).

910726:  Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct. [Not being at my appointed place of duty at the appointed time on 2 occasions and my assault on a non-commissioned officer.] Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.
910726:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to minor disciplinary infractions.
910726:          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.

910726:  Commanding officer recommended discharge under honorable conditions (general) by reason of misconduct due to minor disciplinary infractions. The factual basis for this recommendation was three nonjudicial punishments and has been counseled concerning his deficiencies. By his actions and inability to respond to counseling, he has demonstrated that he has no potential for further military service.

910726:  SJA review recommended discharge under honorable conditions (general) by reason of misconduct due to minor disciplinary infractions.

910730:  GCMCA [Commanding General, 1 st Marine Aircraft Wing] directed the applicant's discharge under honorable conditions (general) by reason of misconduct due to minor disciplinary infractions.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 910809 under honorable conditions (general) for misconduct due to minor disciplinary infractions (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).

 The applicant addresses post service in his issues. The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge (D). 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. No such error or injustice is evident in the applicant’s service record.

The applicant has not provided sufficient evidence of post service to warrant an upgrade based on post-service conduct. 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 should produce evidence of continuing educational pursuits, a verifiable employment record, documentation of community service, and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities. At this time the applicant has not provided sufficient documentation of good character and conduct. Therefore no relief will be granted. The applicant is reminded that he is eligible for a personal appearance hearing provided the request is received by the NDRB within 15 years from the date of his discharge.
Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A. Paragraph 6210, Misconduct, of 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.
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 St SE Rm 309
                  Washington, D.C. 20374-5023     


Similar Decisions

  • USMC | DRB | 1999_Marine | MD99-01245

    Original file (MD99-01245.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Decision A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 000525. Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events : 970527: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86:Specification: Unauthorized absence from appointed place of duty, to wit: Formation for Machine Gun Shoot on 0530, 20May97. 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-00198

    Original file (MD03-00198.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Issues, as submitted Prior to the documentary discharge review, the Applicant introduced no issues, as block 8 on the DD Form 293 is blank. [Violation of the UCMJ Article 91, 92 dated 930212 disregard to Marine Corps Regulation to include NJP dated 920909 in reference to assault, page 11 entry dated 930122, not being at your appointed place of duty.] The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflects his disobedience of the orders...

  • USMC | DRB | 2000_Marine | MD00-00741

    Original file (MD00-00741.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.990707: SJA review determined the case sufficient in law and fact.990707: GCMCA [Commander, Marine Corps Base, Camp Smedley D Butler] directed the applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to minor disciplinary infractions. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the...

  • USMC | DRB | 2000_Marine | MD00-00249

    Original file (MD00-00249.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. You should read Enclosure (5) of the Directive before submitting such a complaint. 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-00565

    Original file (MD03-00565.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 Letter from Applicant PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: None Inactive: USMCR(J) 930409 - 931207 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 931208 Date of Discharge: 950818 Length of Service (years, months, days):Active: 01 08 01 Inactive: None Necessary...

  • USMC | DRB | 2000_Marine | MD00-00221

    Original file (MD00-00221.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Charge I: violation of the UCMJ, Article 86: Specification: Failed to be at appointed place of duty on 1630, 3Feb98. The factual basis for this recommendation was applicant's violations of the UCMJ to include unauthorized absence, making and uttering false checks (thirteen offenses), dishonorable failure to pay a debt and failure of the Marine Corps weight control program. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board...

  • USMC | DRB | 1999_Marine | MD99-00695

    Original file (MD99-00695.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 950808 Date of Discharge: 980408 Length of Service (years, months, days):Active: 02 08 01 Inactive: None 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 consideration by the Board.

  • USMC | DRB | 1999_Marine | MD99-00875

    Original file (MD99-00875.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD99-00875 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 990609, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions, that the RE code be upgraded, and the reason for the discharge be changed to convenience of the government. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the...

  • USMC | DRB | 2001_Marine | MD01-01126

    Original file (MD01-01126.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) 920321 - 921115 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 921116 Date of Discharge: 950811 Length of Service (years, months, days):Active: 02 08 26 Inactive: None Necessary corrective actions...

  • USMC | DRB | 2000_Marine | MD00-00035

    Original file (MD00-00035.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Decision A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 000604. The NDRB is under no obligation to upgrade an applicant’s discharge to allow him the opportunity to utilize the G. I. The applicant states that he has learned form his mistakes and the NDRB has no doubt that he has, but the Board must look at the equity and propriety of the discharge to determine if an error occurred which would warant recharacterization of the discharge.