Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2001_Marine | MD01-00984
Original file (MD01-00984.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-PFC, USMC
Docket No. MD01-00984

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 010725, 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 020215. 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, authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6210.3.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

 1. The reason my discharge should be changed is: I wasn't given any other options than to take a court martial and get a BCD or take NJP and an OTH discharge. The option to stay in the military and add my missed outs to remaining time was not given an option another reason is my wife's grandmother wrote a letter to the commandant of the marine corps that was also used as part of my reason for discharge.

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
Copies of DD Form 214 (3)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: USMC              None
         Inactive: USMCR(J)                970203 - 980401  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 980402               Date of Discharge: 000608

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 02 02 07
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 20                          Years Contracted: 4

Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 65

 Highest Rank: LCpl

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Proficiency: 3.8 (8)                       Conduct: 3.8 (8)

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: Rifle Expert Badge, GCM

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: 108

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6210.3.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

990119:  UA 0700, 990119 to 0700, 990121(2days/S).

990122:  Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct. [Being U.A. and disobeying a lawful order, by your IOC and SNOC, Specifically, being U.A. from 0720 on 990119 to 0100 on 990121, you also failed to call your section as instructed by your OIC and SNCOIC, if there were any difficulties in reporting on time]. Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued

990921:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Absent himself from his appointed place of duty 0545-0555, 990826 to wit: H&S Co, Comm PLT, BLT 1/4.
         Award: Forfeiture of $260.00 per month for 1 month. Not appealed.

000419:  Pretrial confinement 000419 to 000515.

000516:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Without authority absent himself from his appointed place of duty to wit: H&S Company, 2d Battalion, 4 th Marine 0731, 000104 until apprehension on 000414 (104days/A).
         Award: Forfeiture of $563.00 pay per month for 2 month, restriction and extra duty for 19 days, reduction to E-2. Not appealed.
000516:  Counseled this date per 6105 that the Commanding Officer 2d Bn 4 th Marines has begun proceeding to separate me from the United States Marine Corps for misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.
000516:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.
000516:  Applicant advised of his rights and having elected to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights.

000516:  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 your general lack of discipline, and lack of maturity, poor attitude, lack of responsibility for your actions, two U.A. offenses and your failure to adapt to Marine Corps standards throughout your career.

000524:  SJA review determined the case sufficient in law and fact [Extracted from CO's message dated 000516].

000530:  GCMCA [Commanding General, 1 st Marine Division] 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 000608 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct (A). The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (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 (C and D).

Issue 1. The Board found no inequity or impropriety in the fact that the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment and an administrative discharge rather than accept trial at a special court-martial. A characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions 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. T he applicant’s service was marred by award of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for offenses triable by court-martial on two occasions and adverse counseling entries on other occasions. The applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflects his willful disobedience of the orders and directives which regulate good order and discipline in naval service, and falls short of that required for an honorable characterization of service. An upgrade to honorable would be inappropriate. The Board found no evidence that the alleged letter written to the Commandant of the Marine Corps unfairly influenced the separation authority’s decision in the applicant’s case. 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 6210, MISCONDUCT , of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16E), effective 18 Aug 95 until Present.

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 “ 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 | 2001_Marine | MD01-00729

    Original file (MD01-00729.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION That same day you lost a second map at OP-2 CLNC]. 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.

  • USMC | DRB | 2002_Marine | MD02-00926

    Original file (MD02-00926.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD02-00926 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020611, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Letter from Applicant dated May 14, 2002 Two pages from Applicant's service record PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of...

  • USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-00497

    Original file (MD03-00497.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the Applicant’s service was discovered by the NDRB. The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of her service, reflects her disobedience of the orders and directives which...

  • USMC | DRB | 2001_Marine | MD01-00713

    Original file (MD01-00713.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 not appropriate for the offenses I committed. I request my discharge be upgraded to General Under Honorable Conditions.” The NDRB found the applicant’s service record demonstrated a pattern of misconduct according to regulations. Relief is...

  • USMC | DRB | 2000_Marine | MD00-00766

    Original file (MD00-00766.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    See I work at a motor pool, and daily they have marines or duty with dispatches. 990708: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86:Specification: Fail to go at the time prescribed to motor pool 0450, 4May99. 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).In the applicant’s issue 1, the Board disagreed that the applicant’s supervisory chain of command was...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004 Marine | MD04-00198

    Original file (MD04-00198.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD04-00198 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20031117. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Violation of UCMJ, Article 92: did disobey a lawful order from 1stSgt T_.Awd red to E-1 and 45 days restriction and extra duties.

  • USMC | DRB | 1999_Marine | MD99-00898

    Original file (MD99-00898.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION 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) 861219 - 870104 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 870105 Date of Discharge: 880803 Length of Service (years, months, days):Active: 01 06...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00956

    Original file (ND01-00956.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00956 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010717, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. Decision A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 020130. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 000516 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to drug abuse (use) (A).

  • USMC | DRB | 2001_Marine | MD01-00330

    Original file (MD01-00330.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Nonetheless, the Board finds no evidence of inequity in the conduct of the nonjudicial punishment and two Summary Court Martial convictions in which the applicant was found guilty. He admitted he was guilty of violating the Articles of the UCMJ under which he was charged and also found guilty during two subsequent Summary Court Martial convictions. Relief is not warranted.The NDRB is also authorized to consider outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent that such matters provide a...

  • USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-01488

    Original file (MD03-01488.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD03-01488 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030909. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Looking back on my own personal expectations coming out of boot camp I can see where I exaggerated..