Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2000_Marine | MD00-00147
Original file (MD00-00147.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-Pvt, USMC
Docket No. MD00-00147

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 991102, 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 000727. 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: BAD CONDUCT DISCHARGE/COURT-MARTIAL, authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 1105.



PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

 1. In April of 1997, I made a terrible mistake in not returning from a leave period. Though there is never any really valid justification for such an act, I would beg your understanding for my situation. At that particular moment, I myself was still in the process of maturing and, my father became seriously ill. His lungs had begun to fail him and there was a possibility of his having lung cancer. His doctor also informed us that he was experiencing heart problems. Instead of seeking the appropriate help or direction from the Corps, I panicked and ran away. With the passing of each day my offence became graver as did my fear of returning.

When I finally did realize that only in returning and accepting my responsibility could my life return to sense of normality, I returned. I traveled to Quantico, Va. And surrendered myself. Contrary to all the fears that I had held, I was treated with respect and dignity, I can even say that I felt that the men understood what might have caused me to act the way I did.

For this past period of 2 and a half years, a day has not gone by when I did not regret my childish action. Today I would like to take the first step in fulfilling my unfinished obligation. With you help and understanding, I would wish to start again. Several months ago I spoke with a Marine recruiter and we spoke about the possibility of a reenlistment in the reserves. He told me that there was nothing definite he could say but there might be a chance if I had my discharge and reenlistment code upgraded.

For this reason I am writing to you to solicit your help and assistance.

Respectfully, J_ M_ (Applicant)

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
Character Reference letter from Medford Police, Capt H_ M. H_, dtd Aug 19, 1999
Letter of Reference from J_ B_, undated
Letter of Reference from C_ A_ dtd Dec 30, 1997
Copy of DD Form 214 (2 copies)
Copy of Applicant's DD Form 1966/1 (Record of Military Processing - Armed Forces of the United States) (2 pages)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: None
         Inactive: USMCR(J)                951025 - 960819  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 960820               Date of Discharge: 990301

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 02 06 12 (Doesn't exclude lost/confinement time)
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 19                          Years Contracted: 4

Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 38

 Highest Rank: PFC

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Proficiency: 4.3                           Conduct: 4.3

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: Rifle Expert Badge

Days of Unauthorized Absence: 200

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

BAD CONDUCT DISCHARGE/COURT-MARTIAL, authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 1105.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

970402:  On unauthorized absence

971022:  Surrendered to Quantico, VA (200 days)

 980113:  Special Court-Martial.
         Charge I: violation of the UCMJ, Article 86.
         Specification: Did, on 02Apr97, without authority, absence himself from his organization until 22Oct97
         Finding: to Charge I and the specification thereunder, guilty.
         Sentence: Reduction to E-1 and a bad conduct discharge.
         CA 980805: Sentence approved and ordered executed except for the BCD.

980113:  To appellate leave.

981106:  NMCCCR: Affirmed findings and sentence.

990301:  SSPCMO: Article 71c, UCMJ, having been complied with, Bad Conduct discharge ordered executed.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 990301 with a bad conduct discharge which was the sentence adjudged by a properly constituted special court martial that was determined to be legal and proper, affirmed in the legal chain of review and executed (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 introduced no decisional issues for consideration by the Board.

The Board is limited to reviewing BCD’s for recharacterization of a discharge based on post service conduct, only. The applicant must be aware that 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, may be considered by the NDRB. The applicant is reminded that he is eligible for a personal appearance hearing provided the application is received within 15 years from the date of discharge. Representation at personal appearance hearing is highly recommended.



Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A. Paragraph 1105, DISCHARGE ADJUDGED BY SENTENCE OF COURT-MARTIAL , of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16E), effective 950818 until present.

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 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 | 2002_Marine | MD02-00976

    Original file (MD02-00976.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 000403 with a bad conduct discharge which was the sentence adjudged by a properly constituted special court martial that was determined to be legal and proper, affirmed by appellate review authority and executed (A and B). 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-00814

    Original file (MD03-00814.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The issue presented in this Application is whether or not my Bad Conduct Discharge from the U.S. Marine Corps, which was adjudged at a special court martial on 8 August 1990, should be upgraded to Honorable. However, at the time I requested relief, my discharge had recently been adjudged and the Board properly found that I failed to introduce new evidence of sufficient merit to extenuate, mitigate, or excuse the misconduct of my record, which was a 306 day unauthorized absence.It has how...

  • USMC | DRB | 2002_Marine | MD02-00342

    Original file (MD02-00342.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 990430 with a bad conduct discharge which was the sentence adjudged by a properly constituted special court-martial that was determined to be legal and proper, affirmed in the legal chain...

  • USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-01479

    Original file (MD03-01479.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 20030429 with a bad conduct discharge which was the sentence adjudged by a properly convened special court-martial. PART IV - INFORMATION FOR THE APPLICANT If you believe...

  • USMC | DRB | 2000_Marine | MD00-00997

    Original file (MD00-00997.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 (2 copies) PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: None Inactive: USMCR(J) 920520 - 920915 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 920916 Date of Discharge: 960411 Length of Service (years, months, days):Active: 03 06 26 (Doesn't exclude lost or confinement...

  • USMC | DRB | 2002_Marine | MD02-01028

    Original file (MD02-01028.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).Issues 1 and 2: The Applicant contends that his post-service conduct, to include employment, family life, and the fact that he no longer drinks nor uses drugs, should be considered in the recharacterization of his discharge. This was the case with the Applicant who was placed on appellate leave until his sentence,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004 Marine | MD04-00608

    Original file (MD04-00608.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD04-00608 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20040225. “I would like the Board to review my reentry code. I would like the Review board to review my reentry code and upgrade it so that I may reenlist.

  • USMC | DRB | 1999_Marine | MD99-01124

    Original file (MD99-01124.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT ex-Pvt, USMC Docket No. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 900703 with a bad conduct discharge which was the sentence adjudged by a properly constituted special court martial that was determined to be legal and proper, affirmed in the legal chain of review and executed (A and B). The Manual for Courts-Martial authorizes the...

  • USMC | DRB | 2000_Marine | MD00-00425

    Original file (MD00-00425.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    He did not provide any post-service documentation for the Board to consider. 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]. 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2002_Marine | MD02-00889

    Original file (MD02-00889.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    001129: Special Court-Martial Supplemental Order: Article 71(c), UCMJ, having been complied with, the Bad Conduct discharge is ordered executed. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 001129 with a bad conduct discharge which was the sentence adjudged by a properly constituted special court-martial that was determined to be legal and proper, affirmed by appellate review authority, and executed (A and B). Relief on this...