Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2000_Marine | MD00-00377
Original file (MD00-00377.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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


ex-PFC, USMC
Docket No. MD00-00377

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 000202, 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 designate a representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 000919. 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 – Minor disciplinary infractions (administrative discharge board required but waived), authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6210.2.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues
1. The following reasons are why I believe my discharge should be upgraded to Honorable. If you disagree, please explain in detail why you disagree with my reasons. The "presumption of regularity" that might normally permit you to assume that the service acted correctly in characterizing my service as less than honorable does not apply to my case. The evidence I am submitting will confirm this.
The reasons listed below are why I feel that my discharge should be upgraded to Honorable:
•         My conduct and proficiency marks were average.
•         My NJPs indicated only isolated and minor offenses,
•         My record of promotions shows I was generally a good service member and was never denied promotion based on my NJPS.
•         I would like to say that all though my record reflects some immaturity and irresponsibility on my part, I feel that my Other Than Honorable was not justifiable.
In the six years since I have been out of the military I have matured and have become very responsible. Six years has given me a lot of time to reflect on my mistakes and I have learned that I should take responsibility for my actions. I would greatly appreciate the opportunity to serve my country again and to make the military a career. I know in my heart that I am ready to make this commitment and that I would not make the same mistakes again. Since my discharge, I have worked hard to learn the meaning of responsibility. I have learned effective time management, leadership and communication skills. All of these skills will help me to become a better member in the military as well as a future leader. As a result of my personal growth, I realized the importance of getting a quality education. In September of 1995, I received my Emergency Medical Technician Certification in the State of California. In addition, I have started pursuing a Bachelors Degree in General Education. In closing, I am requesting that my RE code be upgraded to a RE code that allows me the opportunity to re-enlist and that my discharge be upgraded from an Other Than Honorable to a Honorable Discharge. I greatly appreciate your consideration and prompt attention to my request. I hope to hear from you soon in regards to this matter.
Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
Copy of DD Form 214
Letter from Employer, W_ K_, dtd Aug 23, 1999
 Character Reference from Employer, T_B_, dtd Aug 20, 1999
 Character Reference letter from T_ Y_, dtd Aug 23, 1999
Character Reference letter from R_B_ dtd Aug 18, 1999
 Emergency Medical Technician Certificate of Completion dtd Oct 2, 1995
Letter of Emergency Medical Technician Course Description dtd Sep 30, 1995
Summer session 1999 Grade Report (University of Hawaii)
November 1998 Performance Evaluation from S_ Clinic & Hospital, Inc.
June 1999 Performance Evaluation from S_ Clinic & Hospital, Inc.

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: None
          Inactive: USMCR(J)                880804 - 890723  COG
Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 890724               Date of Discharge: 930202

 Length of Service (years, months, days):
         Active: 03 06 09
          Inactive: None
Age at Entry: 17 (Parental Consent)       Years Contracted: 4

Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 36
Highest Rank: LCpl

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):
Proficiency: 4.2 (8)                       Conduct: 4.3 (8)

 Military Decorations: None
Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM, NUC, MM, COC

Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

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

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

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

900821:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 123a: in that member did between
 the periods of 13 Jun - 27 Jun by making, drawing, or uttering bad checks totaling the dollar amount of $84.54 with insufficient funds to cover said checks.
 Awarded forfeiture of $196.00 per month for 1 month (suspended for 3 months), restriction and extra duties for 14 days. Not appealed.
910129:  Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct (improper use of government meal card). Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.
920317:  Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct (failure to maintain weight standard set forth in MCO 6100.10A). Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.
920402:  Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct (illegal disassembly of the M16A2 service rifle). Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.
920429:  Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct (inability to maintain personal financial responsibilities by paying bills on time). Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.
920807:  Permanent Decertification from the Personnel Reliability Program due to financial irresponsibility.

 920904:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: at or about 0630, 27AUG92, without authority, fail to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty, remedial PT session.
         Award: Forfeiture of $482 per month for 2 months (suspended for 6 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days (15 days restriction and extra duties suspended for 6 months). Not appealed.
920922:  NJP imposed and suspended on 920908 for a period of 6 months vacated and punishment ordered executed.
921013:  Retention Warning: Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct (unsatisfactory conduct - failure to be at appointed place of duty). Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.
921022:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: at 0700, on 26SEP92, without authority, fail to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty, restriction sign in; violation of UCMJ Article 86: did at 0900, on 27SEP92, without authority, fail to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty, restriction sign in; violation of UCMJ Article 90: at 0400, on 18OCT92, willfully disobey the order issued by Maj K_, USMC, to muster at Daly Hall for marathon rehearsal.
         Award: Forfeiture of $440 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to E-2. No indication of appeal in the record.
921103:  Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct (failure to maintain his room in an orderly and clean conditions, specifically receiving an unsat for room inspection by the Commanding Officer on 921030). Informed that this is an hygiene issue which reflects on his performance and conduct which will not be tolerated. Applicant given 5 days to provide a written rebuttal. Applicant chose not to make a statement.
921117:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to minor disciplinary infractions.
921117:  Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights.

 921203:  Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to minor disciplinary infractions. The factual basis for this recommendation was due to three NJP's and numerous counseling. Commanding officer’s comments (verbatim): "PFC (Applicant) has been counseled formally and informally on numerous occasions. He has had the opportunity to correct his conduct and has failed to comply with the Marine Corps' minimum standards of conduct. PFC (Applicant)'s conduct reflects a total disregard for authority, rules and regulations and shows that he is unsuited for further service. Accordingly, it is strongly recommended that PFC (Applicant) be separated from the Marine Corps Under Other Than Honorable Conditions."
930113:  SJA review determined the case sufficient in law and fact.
930115:  GCMCA [CG, MC Combat Development Command, Quantico, VA] advised the CMC that the applicant's discharge was approved and the discharge directed under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to minor disciplinary infractions.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 930202 under other than honorable conditions 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 following is provided for the applicant’s edification. 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 civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Normally, to permit relief, an error or injustice must be found to have existed during the period of enlistment in question.
In the applicant’s issue 1, the Board found the applicant’s statement, “The "presumption of regularity" that might normally permit you to assume that the service acted correctly in characterizing my service as less than honorable does not apply to my case.”, to be inaccurate. It is the judgment of the Board that regularity was observed throughout the applicant’s discharge proceedings, and further, that regularity is well documented. The board further notes the applicant declined in writing the offer to receive all documents pertaining to his separation from the United States Marine Corps.
The applicant’s further statement that his service reflects isolated and minor offenses is not substantiated by his Service Record. His service, summarized above, is rather a continuum of offenses and infractions. Additionally, the applicant received the benefit of counseling on five separate occasions for which he could have been awarded Non-Judicial Punishment. It is the opinion of the Board that the applicant was offered every opportunity to successfully complete his enlistment obligation and failed to take advantage of those opportunities. Therefore, no relief is granted.
Concerning the applicant’s request for a change in reenlistment code, the NDRB has no authority to change reenlistment codes or make recommendations to permit reentry into the naval service or any other of the Armed Forces. The NDRB has no jurisdiction over reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Navy or Marine Corps. Reenlistment policy of the naval service is promulgated by the Bureau of Naval Personnel, Pers-282, 5720 Integrity Drive, Millington, TN 38055, and the Commandant, United States Marine Corps, Code MMEA, 3280 Russell Road, Quantico, VA 22134. Neither a less than fully honorable discharge nor an unfavorable "RE" code is, in itself, a bar to reenlistment. A request for a waiver is normally done only during the processing of a formal application for enlistment through a recruiter. Relief, is therefore, denied.

The applicant 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. Representation at personal appearance hearing is highly recommended

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. 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.

C. 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.
D. 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 | 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 | 2000_Marine | MD00-00399

    Original file (MD00-00399.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    931020: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under Other Than Honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to Minor disciplinary infractions and misconduct due to a Pattern of misconduct.931020: Applicant advised of his rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ, Article 27B, elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge Board.931028: Commanding officer recommended discharge under Other Than Honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due...

  • 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 | 1999_Marine | MD99-00794

    Original file (MD99-00794.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 discharge was proper and equitable (D and E).The applicant introduced no decisional issues for consideration by the Board. At this time the applicant has not provided sufficient documentation of his good character and conduct.

  • 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.

  • USMC | DRB | 1999_Marine | MD99-01148

    Original file (MD99-01148.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    One is my discharge. [Substandard performance of duty due to your failure to conform to military standards and regulations in that you possessed alcoholic beverages in your room being under the age of 21 years and being arrested by civilian authorities while your liberty was secured] Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.891129: Suspension of 14 days restriction and extra duty imposed and suspended on 890811 for a...

  • USMC | DRB | 2000_Marine | MD00-00611

    Original file (MD00-00611.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    [NJP held on 990319 for a violation of Article 92, UCMJ: wearing a camouflage Gortex Jacket with civilian attire; Article 128: UCMJ: aggravated assault; Article 134, UCMJ: drunk and disorderly.] 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 Other Than Honorable Discharge was inequitable because it was based on 3 incidents...

  • USMC | DRB | 2001_Marine | MD01-00766

    Original file (MD01-00766.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 Copies from Service Record (7pgs)Police Record Check Data (2pgs)Copies from Medical Record (2pgs) Copy of Questionnaire about Military ServiceCopy of Reply Concerning Military Records Thank You Letter from St. John Neumann Catholic Church PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active:...

  • USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-00642

    Original file (MD03-00642.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION 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.