Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2001_Marine | MD01-00371
Original file (MD01-00371.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-PVT, USMC
Docket No. MD01-00371

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 010130, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. The applicant requested a personal appearance hearing discharge review before the Board in the Washington National Capital Region. The applicant listed American Legion as her representative on the DD Form 293. 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.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 010906. 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. (Equity Issue) Pursuant to 10 USC 874 (b) (UCMJ, Article 74) and in accordance with SECNAVINST 5420.174C, enclosure (1), paragraph 2.24 and 9.3, this former member requests the Board's clemency relief with up-grade of her characterization of service to under honorable conditions on the basis of her post-service conduct.

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
Letter from Applicant (3pgs)
Copies of DD Form 214 (2)
Service Related Documents (36pgs)
Letter from Applicant
Copy of Performance Review and Development Plan (8pgs)
Copy of Certificate of Appreciation
Copy of STAR Employee Award
2 Copies of Certificate of Attendance (How to manage multiple projects, meet deadlines, and achieve objectives)
Copy of Certificate of Attendance (Management skills for secretaries, administrative assistants and support staff)
Copy of Certificate of Completion (Excel 2000-Beginning)
Copy of Certificate of Appreciation (Science Fair Judge)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: USMC              850219 - 920206  HON
         Inactive: USMCR(J)                850117 - 850218  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 920207               Date of Discharge: 981007

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 06 01 27
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 18                          Years Contracted: 4

Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 56

 Highest Rank: SGT

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages : All enlisted performance reports were available to the Board for review.

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: Rifle Expert Badge(2 nd ), NDSM, GCM(3 RD ), Meritorious Mast(w/2 Awds), SSDR, NAM, MUC(w/2 Awds),

Days of Unauthorized Absence: 75

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 :

920207:  Reenlisted at Security Battalion MCB MCCDC Quantico VA for 4 years.

 960426:  Special Court-Martial.
         Charge I: violation of the UCMJ, Article 86 (2 Specifications):
         Specification 1: Did on 951229, without authority absent herself from org until 960119; Specification 2: Did on 960123, without authority absent herself from org until 960319
         Charge II: violation of the UCMJ, Article 112a: (2 Specifications): Specification 1: Did on 951109, wrongfully use cocaine;
         Specification: 2: Did on 960320, wrongfully use cocaine.
         Findings: to Charge I and specifications 1 and 2 thereunder, guilty. To Charge II and specification 1 and 2 thereunder, not guilty.
         Sentence: Confinement for 130 days, reduction to E-1, and a bad conduct discharge.
         CA 970714: Sentence approved and ordered executed except for the BCD, but the execution of that part of the sentence extending to confinement in excess of 128 days, will be suspended for a period of 12 months from the date of trial, at which time, unless sooner vacated, the suspended part of the sentence will be remitted without further action. The sentence to confinement was deferred in accordance with the pretrial agreement. The accused was given credit with having served pretrial confinement from 960119 to 960122 and from 960319 to 960721.
        
960724:  Clemency waiver.

980518:  NMCCMR: Affirmed findings and sentence.

980923:  COMA: Petition for review denied.

981007:  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 981007 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).

 Issue 1. Relevant and material facts stated in a court-martial specification are presumed by the NDRB to be established facts. With respect to a discharge adjudged by a court-martial case, the action of the NDRB is restricted to upgrades based on clemency. The applicant's case was considered under the pertinent standards of equity to determine if any factors in this particular case merited clemency. The NDRB found the applicant’s service record devoid of any mitigating or extenuating factors sufficient to offset the seriousness of the offenses for which the discharge was awarded. Normally, to permit relief, an error or injustice must have existed during the period of enlistment in question. No such error or injustice occurred during the applicant’s enlistment. Additionally, 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. However, the NDRB is authorized to consider outstanding post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge, 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. 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. 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 provided to receive consideration for clemency, based on post-service conduct. The applicant did not provide any of these documents. He 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. The applicant can provide additional documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments at that time. Legal representation at a personal appearance hearing is highly recommended but not required. Relief denied.

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 112a, Wrongful use of a controlled substance.
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 “ afls10.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 | MD00-00942

    Original file (MD00-00942.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Navel Discharge Review Board (NDRB) also advised that the board first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Letter from Applicant 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) 931015 - 940612 COG Period of Service Under...

  • USMC | DRB | 2001_Marine | MD01-00075

    Original file (MD01-00075.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    960206: 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 960208 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 NDRB is authorized to consider outstanding post-service...

  • USMC | DRB | 2000_Marine | MD00-00093

    Original file (MD00-00093.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. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214 Applicant's Record of Trial/Review PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active:...

  • 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 | 2001_Marine | MD01-00481

    Original file (MD01-00481.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION 960103: 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 960105 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).

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004 Marine | MD04-00324

    Original file (MD04-00324.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD04-00324 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20031210. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 20020326 with a bad conduct discharge which was the sentence adjudged by a properly convened special court-martial.

  • USMC | DRB | 2000_Marine | MD00-00953

    Original file (MD00-00953.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    (Equity Issue) Pursuant to 10 USC 874 (b) (UCMJ, Article 74) and in accordance with SECNAVINST 5420.174C, enclosure (1), paragraph 2.24 and 9.3, this former member requests the Board's clemency relief with upgrade of his characterization of service to under honorable conditions on the basis of his post-service conduct. (B, art IV) In the applicant’s issue, the Board found that while he requests clemency on the basis of his post-service conduct, there is no documentation to provide the Board...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004 Marine | MD04-00132

    Original file (MD04-00132.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD04-00132 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20031023. The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 19920507 with a bad conduct discharge which was the sentence adjudged by a properly convened special court-martial.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004 Marine | MD04-00323

    Original file (MD04-00323.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Issues submitted by Applicant’s counsel/representative (DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS): “ Dear Chairperson:After a review of the Former Service Members (FSM) DD Form 293 Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States and all evidence assembled for review, we continue to note the contention of the appellant in his request for a discharge upgrade of his current Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD) to that of Honorable, or General Under Honorable Conditions....

  • USMC | DRB | 2002_Marine | MD02-01279

    Original file (MD02-01279.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Issues, as submitted (Equity Issue) Pursuant to 10 USC 874 (b) (UCMJ, Article 74) and in accordance with SECNAVINST 5420.174C, enclosure (1), paragraph 2.24 and 9.3, this former member requests the Board’s clemency relief with up-grade of his characterization of service on the basis of his post-service conduct. Sentence: Confinement for 45 days, and a bad conduct discharge. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 19970319...