Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2000_Marine | MD00-00296
Original file (MD00-00296.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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


ex-LCpl, USMC
Docket No. MD00-00296

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 991227, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. The applicant requested a personal appearance hearing discharge review. The applicant listed the American Legion as his representative on the DD Form 293. In the acknowledgement letter to the applicant, the applicant was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing.
Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 000831. After a thorough review of the records, 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/Conduct triable by courts-martial (request for discharge for the good of the service), authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6419.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION


Issues (verbatim)

1. (Equity Issue) This former member proffers that mitigating family problems impaired his ability to serve and contributed to his violations of the UCMJ. In light of his otherwise satisfactory service, he opines that separation under honorable conditions is warranted.
2. (Equity Issue) This former member further requests that the Board include provisions of SECNAVINST 5420.174C, enclosure (1), Chapter 9, as it pertains to post-service conduct, in assessing the merits of his application.
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: USMC              841017 - 880708  HON
          Inactive: USMCR(J)                840406 - 840430  COG
 USMCR(J)                 840926 - 841016  COG
Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 880709               Date of Discharge: 921125

 Length of Service (years, months, days):
         Active: 04 04 17
          Inactive: None
Age at Entry: 25                          Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 35
Highest Rank: Cpl

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):
Proficiency: 4.6 (12)             Conduct: 4.2 (12)

 Military Decorations: None
Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM, Letter of Appreciation (4), Certificate of Commendation (2), HSM, GCM, KLM, MUC, SSDR (3), SASM

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: 158
Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance):

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Conduct triable by courts-martial (request for discharge for the good of the service), authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6419.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

880709:  Applicant re-enlisted for 4 years.
890728:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (2 specs):
 Specification 1: Fail to go at the prescribed time to field day formation on 1800, 20Jul90.
 Specification 2: Fail to go at the prescribed time to a Battalion Commanders Inspection on 0630-1245, 24Jul90.
 Violation of UCMJ, Article 92:
 Specification: Disobey lawful order from an SNCO, to wit: to report to Booker Rights Class no later than 0715, 26Jul90..
Awarded forfeiture of $238.00 per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duties for 14 days. Forfeiture suspended for four months. Not appealed.
900904:  Applicant to unauthorized absence 0700, 4Sep90.
901218:  Applicant returned from unauthorized absence 2332, 18Dec90 (105 days/surrendered).
910220:  Special Court-Martial.
         Charge I: violation of the UCMJ, Article 86 (2 Specifications):
          Specification 1: Unauthorized absence 1330, 24Jul90 to 1330, 28Aug90 (35 days).
          Specification 2: Unauthorized absence 4Sep90 to 18Dec90 (105 days).
          Findings: to Charge I and specifications thereunder, guilty.
         Sentence: Forfeiture of $400 per month for 5 months, confinement for 60 days, hard labor without confinement for 2 months, reduction to PFC.
         CA 910329: Sentence approved and ordered executed except for the part extending to confinement, hard labor without confinement, reduction below the rank of LCpl and forfeiture of pay in excess of $100.00 pay per month for 5 months is suspended for twelve months.
910730:  Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct. [Unsatisfactory conduct and my involvement with both military and civilian authorities. I understand that I am presently on 2 yrs probation in the state of NC for cashing of worthless checks.] Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.

911119:  Applicant to unauthorized absence 0800, 19Nov91.

 911123:  Applicant from unauthorized absence 1130, 23Nov91 (4 days/surrendered).
911217:  Applicant to unauthorized absence, 0730, 17Dec91.
920903:  Applicant from unauthorized absence 1010, 3Sep92 (14 days/apprehended).
920903:  Applicant to confinement.
Separation package missing from service record .

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT
REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 921125 under other than honorable conditions in lieu of trial by court-martial (A and B). The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (C). After a thorough review of the records, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (D and E).
The applicant’s representative submitted the following as issue 1: “ (Equity Issue) This former member proffers that mitigating family problems impaired his ability to serve and contributed to his violations of the UCMJ. In light of his otherwise satisfactory service, he opines that separation under honorable conditions is warranted.” T he Board found nothing in the records nor did the applicant submit any supporting documentation that showed that his personal problems were of sufficient magnitude that they could not be resolved through standard military channels or by the applicant's chain of command. In fact, the Board found that the applicant's age, education, test scores, prior service, promotions and awards were sufficient to qualify him for enlistment. The Board will not grant relief on the basis of this issue.
The applicant’s representative submitted the following as issue 2: (EQUITY ISSUE) This former member further requests that the Board include provisions of SECNAVINST 5420.174C., enclosure (1), Chapter 9, as it pertains to post-service conduct, in assessing the merits of his application. The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. 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 did not provide any documentation of his post-service. The applicant should have produced evidence of continuing educational pursuits, a verifiable employment record, documentation of community service and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities 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 encouraged to continue with his pursuits and is reminded that he is eligible for 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 6419, SEPARATION IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT-MARTIAL, 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 | 2003_Marine | MD03-01358

    Original file (MD03-01358.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD03-01358 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030807. The only document the Board considered was the DD Form 214, as the Applicant did not provide any additional documentation for consideration. Relief not warranted.The Applicant is reminded that he remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of his discharge.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00513

    Original file (ND03-00513.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. No indication of appeal in the record.921008: SIMA Little Creek notified Applicant of intended recommendation for discharge by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct as evidenced by three or more punishments under the UCMJ within your current enlistment. The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflects...

  • USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-00493

    Original file (MD03-00493.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD03-00493 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030131. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable or general/under honorable conditions. The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00589

    Original file (ND01-00589.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    CA action 880710: Sentence approved and ordered executed.880709: Applicant to confinement. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 880817 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A). 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.

  • USMC | DRB | 2002_Marine | MD02-01215

    Original file (MD02-01215.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD02-01215 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020821, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. 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). Relief not warranted.The Applicant is reminded that he remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is...

  • USMC | DRB | 1999_Marine | MD99-01056

    Original file (MD99-01056.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD99-01056 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 990729, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to Entry Level Separation or Uncharacterized. 900629: GCMCA [Commanding General, Marine Corps Base, Camp Lejeune] determined that applicant had no potential for further service, that separation in lieu of trial by court-martial was in the best interest of the service, and directed discharge under other than honorable conditions by...

  • USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-00176

    Original file (MD03-00176.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD03-00176 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 20021106, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. 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. You should read Enclosure (5) of the Directive before...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00354

    Original file (ND99-00354.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. Applicant’s letter dated 981130 Copies of Applicant’s service record (previously held by the NDRB) Copy of letter and enclosure to the applicant from GEICO Insurance dated 940614 Copy of GED and associated scores PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: USNR (DEP) 921125 -...

  • USMC | DRB | 2001_Marine | MD01-01099

    Original file (MD01-01099.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD01-01099 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010820, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. Evidence of continuing educational pursuits, an employment record, documentation of community service, certification of non-involvement with civil authorities and proof of his not using drugs, are examples of verifiable documents that should have been...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-01032

    Original file (ND00-01032.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    850927: Unauthorized absence from USS INDEPENDENCE (CV62) located at PNSY, Philadelphia, PA since 1330, 85SEP27, intentions unknown. The Board after considering the applicant’s entire application and service record did not find relief warranted. 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...