Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2001_Marine | MD01-01030
Original file (MD01-01030.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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


ex-LCpl, USMCR(AR)
Docket No. MD01-01030

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 010730, 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: GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT, authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6210.2.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

 1. I feel my General Discharge came about as a result of the overwhelming family issues that I was experiencing at that given time in my career. I am requesting an Upgrade in my Discharge. Please see attachments.

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
Applicant's Letter to the Board dtd Jul 23, 2001
Copy of DD Form 214 for period 980926 - 010109
Copy of DD Form 214 for period 940926 - 980925

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: None
         Inactive: USMCR(J)                940722 - 940925  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 940926               Date of Discharge: 010109

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 05 06 04
         Inactive: 00 11 13

 Age at Entry: 26 upon return to active duty with the Active Marine Reserves

 Years Contracted: 4 active, with MSO until 22 July 2002

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 36

 Highest Rank: Cpl

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Proficiency: 3.8 (16)             Conduct: 4.2 (16)

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM, MM, SSDR, Rifle Expert Badge, Pistol Sharpshooter Badge

Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT, authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6210.2.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

940926:  Enlisted USMC for term of 4 years with Reserve Obligation Termination date of 22 July 2002.
950330:  Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct [failure to follow instructions by not being at my appointed place of duty]. Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.
950526:  Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct [repeated absences form appointed place of duty and a lack of judgment displayed during off duty activities]. Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.
950628:  Applicant requested a humanitarian temporary additional duty assignment due to father's illness.

950711:  CMC disapproved applicant's request.
960212:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (3 Specs):
Specification 1: on or about 0800, 960203, without authority, failed to go at the time prescribed to her appointed place of duty to wit: Bldg 401, Camp Kinser, Okinawa, Japan and did remain so absent until on or about 0943, 960203.
Specification 2: on or about 0800, 960204, without authority, failed to go at the time prescribed to her appointed place of duty to wit: Bldg 401, Camp Kinser, Okinawa, Japan and did remain so absent until on or about 1200, 960204.
Specification 3: on or about 0645, 960205, without authority, failed to go at the time prescribed to her appointed place of duty to wit: Bldg 401, Camp Kinser, Okinawa, Japan and did remain so absent until on or about 0730, 960205.
Awarded forfeiture of $232.00 per month for 1 month (suspended for 1 month), restriction and extra duties for 14 days. Not appealed.
960215:  Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct [due to recent NJP - Article 86]. Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.
960328:  NJP imposed and suspended on 960212 for period of 6 months vacated and punishment ordered executed.

960328:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 128: on or about 0028, 960309 assault PFC P_ by grabbing her by the neck and throwing her to the ground.
         Award: Forfeiture of $268 per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duty for 30 days, reduction to E-2. Not appealed.
980925:  Released from active duty and transferred to the Marine Corps Reserves, having served 4 years active duty and received characterization of service as "honorable". Required to serve with the inactive reserves until 22 Jul 2002.
990301:  Joined the Selected Marine Corps Reserves.

 990706:  Assigned to the Active Reserves and reported to active duty at Inspector-Instructor, HQSVC Co, 1 st Bn, 24 th Marines, 4 th MarDiv (Rein), FMF, Detroit, MI.
990928:  Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct [failure to be at your appointed place of duty at the appointed time, specifically, UA on 20, 22, and 23 Sep 99 failing to muster on 0730 on the drill deck for the mandatory staff meeting Monday thru Friday]. Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.
001010:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 and 91: on or about 1230, 23 Sep 2000 without proper authority, failed to report at the time prescribed for her appointed place for duty. Cpl Y_ having received a lawful order from MSgt H_, then known by her to be a SNCO, to report for duty on 23 Sp 2000 at 1200 hours, an order it was her duty to obey, willfully disobey the same.
         Award: Forfeiture of $796.95 per month for 1 month (suspended for six months), reduction to E-3. Not appealed.
001017:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with the least favorable characterization of service as under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to minor disciplinary infractions as evidenced by 3 counseling and 3 NJP's. Commanding Officer advised applicant that the recommended characterization of service would be "General Under Honorable Conditions.”
001019:  Applicant advised of her rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights except the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation.

001031:  Inspector-Instructor recommended discharge general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to minor disciplinary infractions. The factual basis for this recommendation was due to repeated pattern of misconduct and failure to make any serious attempt to resolve her misconduct.

001222:  SJA review determined the case sufficient in law and fact.

001222:  GCMCA [Commander, MarForRes] directed the applicant's discharge general (under 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 010109 general (under honorable conditions) for misconduct due to minor disciplinary infractions (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 that the applicant’s age, education level, and test scores qualified her for enlistment. While she may feel that her family related problems were factors that contributed to her actions, the record clearly reflects her willful disregard for the requirements of military discipline and demonstrated that she was unfit for further service. The record is devoid of evidence that the applicant was not responsible for her conduct or that she should not be held accountable for her actions. Further, there is no evidence that the command abused its authority when it initiated separation proceedings. The applicant did not contest the administrative separation proceedings, choosing neither to consult with counsel or request a board. The separation proceedings were reviewed and found sufficient in law and fact on 001222. Relief denied.

The applicant’s discharge characterization accurately reflects her service to her 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 her discharge. She is reminded that she remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of her 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 95until 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

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00820

    Original file (ND04-00820.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND04-00820 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20040421. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of 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:Applicant’s request for hardship discharge with cover sheet, unsigned HT2 request for hardship Applicant’s résumé PART II -...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004 Marine | MD04-01354

    Original file (MD04-01354.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. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

  • USMC | DRB | 2001_Marine | MD01-00937

    Original file (MD01-00937.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 (E and F).Issue 1 states: “I believe my discharge was undeserved since it was based entirely on one mistake made during an otherwise honorably served tour.” The NDRB finds the applicant’s issue without merit. The applicant missed 70 reserve drills. The applicant did not provide any of these documents.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004 Marine | MD04-00714

    Original file (MD04-00714.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Spec 1: Disorderly conduct. On 20030212, the Applicant’s Battalion Commander recommended that the Applicant be “separated with a general (under honorable conditions), characterization of service, by convenience of the government due to a personality disorder”. In cases where no other reason for separation set forth in the Naval Military Personnel Manual is appropriate, but where separation of a member is considered to be in the best interest of the service, the Secretary of the Navy has...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00879

    Original file (ND02-00879.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) also advised that the board first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. 960618: USS CONSTELLATION (CV-64) notified Applicant of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense as evidenced by non-judicial punishment on 950810 for violation of Article 128 of the UCMJ, assault consummated by a battery, non-judicial punishment on...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500137

    Original file (ND0500137.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requested the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. At this time, the Applicant has not provided sufficient documentation of post service character and conduct to mitigate the misconduct that resulted in his characterization of discharge. The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of discharge.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00251

    Original file (ND03-00251.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. The applicant provided no documentation of his post-service for the Board to consider. 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:

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500343

    Original file (ND0500343.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. PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: USNR (DEP) 930413 - 930420 COG Active: None Period of Service...

  • USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0501462

    Original file (MD0501462.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable and the Narrative Reason for Separation be changed to “Not suited for military service.” The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review. What is more, according to regulations, Marines being separated by reason of convenience of the government due to personality disorder do not rate an Administrative Discharge Board. Thus, the Board concluded that relief...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004 Marine | MD04-01031

    Original file (MD04-01031.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. The Applicant states, “Kinser PMO took it upon themselves to look at the video tape with no probable cause or anything.” The Board found no indication in the record that the Applicant was denied any legal rights or that his nonjudicial punishment proceedings or administrative discharge was improper or inequitable. As of this time, the Applicant has not provided any...