Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2001_Marine | MD01-00902
Original file (MD01-00902.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-Pvt, USMC
Docket No. MD01-00902

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 010702, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. The applicant requested a personal appearance hearing discharge review. The applicant did not designate a 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 020417. 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. My discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident in 26 months of service with no other adverse action.

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
Character Reference ltr from former Marine, R_ D. B_, dtd June 22, 2001
Copy of DD Form 214

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: None
         Inactive: USMCR(J)                950918 - 951204  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 951205               Date of Discharge: 980518

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 02 05 14 (Doesn't exclude lost/confinement/appellate leave time.)
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 18                          Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: GED              AFQT: 56

 Highest Rank: Pvt

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Proficiency: 4.2                  Conduct: 2.1 [Extracted from SJA's ltr of 23 Oct 96]

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: Rifle Sharpshooter Badge

Days of Unauthorized Absence: 85

 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 :

960418:  Applicant declared a deserter on 940416 having been an unauthorized absentee since 1800, 960317 from HQSVCBN SOI, MCB, Camp Pendleton CA.

960614:  Applicant apprehended by civilian authorities on 960612 (0940) by Chicago Police Dept. Returned to military control 960612 (1100). Delivered to SAC CO, HQSVCBN, SOI, MCB, Camp Pendleton, CA.
        
960710:  Special Court-Martial.
         Charge I: violation of the UCMJ, Article 86:
         Specification: On 17 Mar 96 without authority, absence himself from his organization until apprehended on 12 June 96 (85 days).
         Findings: to Charge I and specification thereunder, guilty.
         Sentence: Confinement for 2 months, forfeiture of pay of $581.00 per month for 2 months, and a bad conduct discharge.
         CA 961031: Sentence approved and ordered executed except for the BCD and execution of that portion of the sentence adjudging confinement in excess of 60 days is suspended for a period of 12 months from date of this action.
        
960807:  To appellate leave.

971217:  NMCCMR: Found collection of any forfeitures….prior to the date of the convening authority's action [is] hereby declared to be illegal. Any [illegal] forfeitures already collected from appellant…..will be restored. Affirmed findings and sentence, as approved on review. Record of trial is return to the JAG of the Navy for appropriate remedial action.

971217:  COMA: Findings and sentence are correct in law and fact.

980518:  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 980518 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. 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). 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. Relief denied.

 The applicant’s discharge characterization accurately reflects his service to his country. The discharge was proper and equitable. 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 relief, based on post-service conduct. The applicant did not provide sufficient documentation to warrant an upgrade to his discharge. 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 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 “ 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 | 2002_Marine | MD02-00221

    Original file (MD02-00221.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 214Navy & Marine Corps Appellate Leave Activity, Wash DC, ltr of 3 Oct 97 concerning applicant's punitive discharge from active dutySSPCMO #97-1656 DTD 23 Oct 97 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: None Inactive: USMCR(J) 950713 - 951029 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of...

  • USMC | DRB | 2000_Marine | MD00-01066

    Original file (MD00-01066.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 970805 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). 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...

  • 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 | 2003_Marine | MD03-00099

    Original file (MD03-00099.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    (Equity Issue) Pursuant to 10 USC 874 (b) (UCMJ, Article 74) and in accordance with SECNAVINST 5420.174C, enclosure (1), paragraphs 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. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004 Marine | MD04-01172

    Original file (MD04-01172.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION I have also been very patiently waiting for military regulations to change, so that I can serve my country as a national guard reservist. 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.

  • USMC | DRB | 2001_Marine | MD01-00670

    Original file (MD01-00670.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION Sentence: Confinement for 60 days, Forfeiture of $639.00 pay per month for 2 months, and a bad conduct discharge. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 000823 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).

  • 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 | 2001_Marine | MD01-00227

    Original file (MD01-00227.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I've served 11 years 9 months and 28 days of active service and was discharged with a Bad conduct discharge as a result of a Special Court Martial for a violation of Article 114A of the uniform code of Military Justice. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214 (2 copies) Discharge Upgrading Questionnaire (10 pages) PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of...

  • USMC | DRB | 2001_Marine | MD01-00922

    Original file (MD01-00922.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 880701 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 | MD03-00023

    Original file (MD03-00023.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    920122: CORRECTIVE ADMIN ACTION: CG, 3d MARDIV directed CO, 4 PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 19930420 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). The Manual for Courts-Martial authorizes the award of a punitive discharge if adjudged as part of the...