Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2001_Marine | MD01-01142
Original file (MD01-01142.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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


ex-LCpl, USMC
Docket No. MD01-01142

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 010830, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. The applicant requested a personal appearance discharge review before a traveling panel closest to [left blank]. The applicant listed a civilian counsel as the representative on the DD Form 293. In the acknowledgement letter to the applicant, he was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) does not travel; all hearings are held in the Washington DC area. The NDRB also advised that the board first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 020529. 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. 6210.6.


PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

 Issues

1. THE DISCHARGE WAS IMPROPER BECAUSE IT WAS BASED ON A FINDING OF GUILT, BASED ON A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE, RATHER THAN GUILT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT
2. IT WAS ABUSE OF PROCESS TO CONVENE AN ADMINISTRATIVE DISCHARGE BOARD FOR THIS MATTER
Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
Copy of DD Form 214
Brief from civilian counsel
 Ninety-six pages from applicant's service record
 Copy of DD Form 149 with attachment (3 pages)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: USMC              810827 - 870219  HON
                  USMC             870220 - 930114  HON
                   USMC             930115 - 960718  HON
          Inactive: USMCR(J)                801213 - 810826  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 960719               Date of Discharge: 000817
Length of Service (years, months, days):

          Active: 04 00 29
          Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 33                          Years Contracted: 4
Education Level: 13                        AFQT: 35/45

 Highest Rank: GySgt
Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages : All enlisted performance reports were available to the Board for review through 990301.
Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: GCM (7), SSDR (4), KLM (K), NUC (2), MUC (2), NASR, KLM, SASM (2), Letter of Appreciation (2)
Days of Unauthorized Absence: None
Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance):

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6210.6.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

991201:  Charges preferred to special court-martial for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) Article 80: Attempt to commit sodomy by force and without consent 0n 10Sep99, Article 134: Commit and indecent assault, to wit: by pulling down shirt and bra to expose her breasts, grabbing her arm and pinning it behind her back, pulling her pants down, pulling her into a bedroom, pushing her on to a bed, sucking her breasts, placing his head between her legs and inserting his fingers into her vagina, removing his finger and then placing his finger into her vagina again, placing his penis on her buttocks and "dry humping" her, grabbing her by the neck and placing his penis on her face while attempting to place his penis in her mouth, all with the intent to gratify his sexual desires.
000224:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.
000303:  Applicant advised of his rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge Board.
000303:  Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense. The factual basis for this recommendation was your commission of the following serious offenses: Indecent assault, attempt (forcible sodomy), and assault.

000303:  Charges and specifications dismissed.

 000313:  Victim recanted her statement.
000316:  An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence and by a vote of 2 to 1, found that the applicant had committed misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense, that the misconduct warranted separation, and recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions.

000505:  SJA review determined the case sufficient in law and fact.
000811:  Commandant of the Marine Corps directed the applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 000817 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense (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. The Board could discern no inequity or impropriety in the procedures of the applicant’s administrative discharge board. The standard of proof is a preponderance of evidence as to all matters before the administrative separation board. On 000505 the applicant’s discharge proceedings were reviewed and found sufficient in law and fact.
 Relief denied.
Issue 2. The Board could discern no abuse of process or other inequity or impropriety in the conduct of the applicant’s administrative separation. A military or civilian conviction is not necessary for a Marine to be administratively separated for misconduct, and the applicant’s commanding officer was exercising proper authority when he initiated administrative separation proceedings. The applicant failed to establish that processing the applicant for administrative separation was not lawful in this case. Further, the NDRB was not convinced that the applicant’s commanding officer exerted an undue influence on the administrative separation board. 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. 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 80, attempted sodomy; Article 134, indecent assault.
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

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02478

    Original file (BC-2005-02478.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Headquarters Twenty-Second Air Force/JA reviewed the case and found it legally sufficient and recommended applicant’s request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial be approved. On 18 February 1990, the applicant submitted an application to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) requesting his UOTHC discharge be upgraded to honorable. The AFDRB reviewed the evidence of record and concluded the discharge was consistent with procedural and substantive requirements of the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00642

    Original file (ND04-00642.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ In accordance with 32 C.F.R., section 724.166; SECNAVINST 5420.174C, enclosure (1), paragraph 1.16, The American Legion submits to the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB or Board) the above issue in supplement to the Applicant’s petition. Specification 4: Wrongfully harassing and using abusive language toward prospect T_ F_ on or about Jul 94.Specification 5: Wrongfully engaging in physical contact with prospect T_ F_ by...

  • USMC | DRB | 1999_Marine | MD99-01058

    Original file (MD99-01058.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD99-01058 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 990723, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION The Board does not upgrade discharges solely to assist the applicant in getting employment.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00692

    Original file (ND04-00692.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The suspect agreed to speak to me about the allegations, the suspect stated that he was at the poolhall with the victim and followed her outside. 031031: Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense. The Applicant can provide documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments or any other evidence related to his discharge at that time.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01245

    Original file (ND03-01245.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-01245 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030718. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable or general/under honorable conditions. 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 Applicant contend “what I was charged for, in the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00675

    Original file (ND01-00675.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00675 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010423, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. THE CO OF NAS JAX DID NOT AGREE WITH THE ADMIN SEPARATION BOARD DECISION AND RECOMMENDED DISCHARGE WHICH WAS APPROVED BY THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE NAVY. 970609: Commanding officer recommended discharge with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00403

    Original file (ND01-00403.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00403 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010212, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable or general/under honorable conditions. In the applicant’s issue 1, the applicant has not provided any documentation of good character and conduct. 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2002_Marine | MD02-01009

    Original file (MD02-01009.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD02-01009 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020708, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. Dear Chairperson:After a review of the Former Service Member (FSM) DD Form 293 Application for the Naval Discharge Review Board of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States and all of the evidence assembled for review, we continue to support the contentions as set forth by the Applicant, in his...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00284

    Original file (ND99-00284.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND99-00284 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 981218, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. I am requesting an upgrade in my discharge from General under honorable conditions to an Honorable discharge. 000000: Applicant advised of his rights {APPLICANT DID NOT SIGN OR DATE}.970508: Commanding officer recommended discharge general under honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1998 | 9801271

    Original file (9801271.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C) . The applicant states no reasonable basis for the untimeliness of his request. A bad conduct discharge is an appropriate punishment for the offenses the applicant has committed.