Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2000_Marine | MD00-00212
Original file (MD00-00212.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-Pvt, USMC
Docket No. MD00-00212

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 991124, 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 000824. 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-Pattern of misconduct (administrative discharge board required but waived), authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6210.3.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

1. My discharge was giving to me unfairly because my battalion 3/8 was leaving for a Med-Float I was transferred to 2/8. The command railroaded me into this discharge they gave me to options. Go home or go to the brig. I choose home. When I received my discharge I asked what was this they stated don't worry about it in 6 months it is upgraded automatically to an honorable discharge.
My discharge is not for a person with three years of honorable service. It is for someone less than 6 mos or something. You give 3 years of your life to be told okay you were here but that is it you don't oh us anything and we don't owe you anything for serving in the armed forcer.
This discharge I feel should be upgraded to honorable because when it was giving it was giving with no explanation or anything the command didn't ask if I wanted to go back to duty the whole concern was he is a problem and the quicker we get rid of him the easier life would be that is for from the truth.


 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
None

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: None
         Inactive: USMCR(J)                861215 - 870907  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 870908               Date of Discharge: 901019

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 03 01 12
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 17                          Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 52

 Highest Rank: LCpl

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Proficiency: 3.9 (10)             Conduct: 3.6 (10)

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: Letter of appreciation

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Misconduct-Pattern of misconduct (administrative discharge board required but waived), authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6210.3.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

881004:  Summary Court-Martial.
         Charge I: violation of the UCMJ, Article 134
         Specification: Discharge M16 rifle while on post at USNAS Keflavik, IC on 14 September 1988
         Finding: to Charge I and the specification thereunder, guilty.
         Sentence: Confined at hard labor for 15 days.
         CA action Unknown: Confinement at hard labor is deferred until 5 October 1988.

881005:  Applicant to confinement.

881017:  Applicant from confinement.

 890906:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 91:
 Specification: Wrongfully disobey a lawful order from 1 st Sgt, to wit: got in a privately owned vehicle after being instructed not to enter any privately owned vehicle while the company was under investigation.
Awarded forfeiture of $189.00 per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duties for 7 days. Restriction suspended for 6 months. Not appealed.
900509:  Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct. [Frequent involvement with the Uniform Code of Military Justice.] Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued

900308:  Special Court-Martial.
         Charge I: violation of the UCMJ, Article 112A:
         Specification: Wrongfully use cocaine between 27Sep89 and 6Oct89.
         Charge II: violation of the UCMJ, Article 86 (2 specs):
         Specification 1: Fail to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 0530, 21Feb90.
         Specification 2: Fail to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 0530, 23Feb90.
         Findings: to Charge I and II and specifications thereunder, guilty.
         Sentence: Fine of $482.00 for 5 months, confinement for 5 months, reduction to Pvt.
         CA 900531: Sentence approved and ordered executed except for the confinement in excess of 60 days and forfeiture in excess of $482.00 pay per month for 2 months are suspended for a period of one year the BCD.
        
900604:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86:
 Specification: Unauthorized absence from place of duty on 1430, 29May90.
Awarded forfeiture of $168.00 per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duties for 14 days. Forfeiture suspended for 6 months. Not appealed.
900808:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 121:
 Specification: Shoplifted 2 products (Sport and Wave hair creme and razor blades) from MCX for a total of $3.95 on 1534, 12Jul90.
Awarded forfeiture of $362.00 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duties for 45 days. Restriction and extra duty suspended for 6 months. Not appealed.
900803:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.
900806:          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.

900807:  Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct. The factual basis for this recommendation was applicant's special court-martial of 8 March 1990, his summary court-martial of 4 October 1988, his nonjudicial punishments of 6 September 1989 and 4 June 1990, and his adverse page 11 entry of 9 May 1990.

900911:  SJA review determined the case sufficient in law and fact.

901006:  GCMCA [Commanding General, 2d Marine Division, Fleet Marine Force, Camp Lejeune] directed the applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 901019 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct (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’s first issue states: “My discharge was giving to me unfairly because my battalion 3/8 was leaving for a Med-Float I was transferred to 2/8. The command railroaded me into this discharge they gave me to options. Go home or go to the brig. I choose home. When I received my discharge I asked what was this they stated don't worry about it in 6 months it is upgraded automatically to an honorable discharge.” The NDRB found the applicant’s discharge proper and equitable considering the applicant’s substantial misconduct. There is no automatic upgrade after a period of time. The NDRB is chartered to conduct reviews based on the propriety and equity of the discharge. The NDRB found no impropriety or inequity in the applicant’s discharge. Relief is not warranted.

 The applicant’s second issue states: “My discharge is not for a person with three years of honorable service. It is for someone less than 6 mos or something. You give 3 years of your life to be told okay you were here but that is it you don't oh us anything and we don't owe you anything for serving in the armed forcer.” When a Marine’s service has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service under honorable conditions. Characterization of service as other than honorable is warranted when significant negative aspects of a member's conduct or performance of duty outweigh the positive aspects of the member's military record. The applicant’s service was marred by the award of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on 3 occasions for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), Summary Court Martial, and Special Court Martial. The applicant’s misconduct included wrongful discharge of M16, wrongful disobey the 1 st SGT, stealing from the MCX, unauthorized absence, and wrongful use of cocaine. Relief is not warranted.









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, 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 | 2000_Marine | MD00-00115

    Original file (MD00-00115.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD00-00115 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 991027, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION During the time of my enlistment in the Marines I had my first experience with alcohol, which was part of the problem concerning in my conduct.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00739

    Original file (ND02-00739.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00739 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020502, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable, but if the discharge cannot be upgraded to honorable, request change RE-4 code. The Applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. The Applicant can provide additional documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments at that time.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00744

    Original file (ND01-00744.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00744 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010508, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to Honorable. Petty officer W_ comes to the ship and good things go bad again. But when the change of our petty officers and chiefs happened he got a position of power.

  • USMC | DRB | 2001_Marine | MD01-01033

    Original file (MD01-01033.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD01-01033 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010806, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. I respected him, but told him "That's why they don't want fraternizing, because you never know when a superior will feel disrespected". 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).A...

  • USMC | DRB | 2002_Marine | MD02-00710

    Original file (MD02-00710.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I am writing the review board today asking to have my discharge upgraded to honorable, although I know my performance was not 100% Professional, I do believe it was not deserving of my discharge received and also there was some issues I will explain.Shortly after I got to my duty station, Camp Pendleton, CA. Performance is less than expected of a Marine. Not appealed.930823: Applicant place on light duty for 30 days and convalescent (sick) leave for 30 days (post-knee...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00691

    Original file (ND02-00691.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT ex-FR, USN Docket No. I have been an addict since day one. Verifiable proof of any post-service accomplishments must be provided in order for the Applicant to claim post-service conduct and behavior as a reason to upgrade a less than honorable discharge.

  • USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-00636

    Original file (MD03-00636.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD03-00636 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030303. The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review. 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 112a, illegal drug use; Article 107, false official statement; and Article 134, break restriction.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00581

    Original file (ND02-00581.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 hearing. Based upon his misconduct, I believe that ABHAA H_ (Applicant) has no potential for further naval service and recommend that he be separated with an Other Than Honorable discharge.] The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of discharge.

  • USMC | DRB | 2002_Marine | MD02-00423

    Original file (MD02-00423.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    As I realize a "Bad-Conduct" discharge says it all, I appeal this at my military recruiter's urging and I will respect whatever the board hands down.I did not know a board like this existed or clemency was even considered upon those who may merit it. I did not believe in questioning those for whom I worked. With respect to a discharge adjudged by a court-martial case, the action of the NDRB is restricted to upgrades based on clemency (C, Part IV).

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01444

    Original file (ND03-01444.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-01444 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030903. I WAS TOLD TO REPORT CAPTAIN MASS AND HE INFORMED ME THAT BECAUSE I HAD BEEN WRITTEN UP 3 TIMES AND THAT IT SHOWS A PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT AND HE RECOMMEND THAT I BE DISCHARGED UNDER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS. The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of discharge.