Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2002_Marine | MD02-00342
Original file (MD02-00342.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-Pvt, USMC
Docket No. MD02-00342

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 020129, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions or entry level separation or uncharacterized. The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. The applicant did not list a representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 020912. 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, as submitted

 Prior to the documentary discharge review, the applicant indicated in Block 8 on the DD Form 293 that he had attached additional issues. No issues were found.

Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
Copies of DD Form 214 (3)
Blank Request for Restoration/Clemency
Copy of CO's Letter for Appellate Leave
Copy of Special Court-Martial Supplemental Order (4 pgs)
Copy of Charge Sheet/Convening Authority (3 pgs)
Blank Copy of Receipt and Understanding of Attorney Introduction Package
Blank Copy of Arraignment Hearing Guide (2 pgs)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: USMC              None
         Inactive: USMCR(J)                970418 - 970420  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 970421               Date of Discharge: 990430

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 02 00 10
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 18                          Years Contracted: 4

Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 88

 Highest Rank: PVT

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Proficiency: NMA                           Conduct: NMA

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: Rifle Marksman Badge

Days of Unauthorized Absence: 23

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 :

971002:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: UA (AWOL), from 0730, 970823 to 1615, 970915 (23 days).
 Awarded forfeiture of $300.00 pay per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duties for 30 days. Not appealed.
971120:  Pre-trial confinement 971120 to 980108 (49 days).

 980109:  Special Court-Martial.
         Charge I : violation of the UCMJ, Article 86: Did on or about 971119, without authority, absent himself from his unit, to wit: Basic Marine Platoon, Recruit Training Regiment, located at Marine Corps Recruit Depot, San Diego, California, and did remain so absent until he was apprehended on or about 971120.
         Charge II : violation of the UCMJ, Article 107: Did on or about 971015, with intent to deceive, make to SSGT G.A. D_, an official statement, to wit: “I received money in the mail that I used to pay my debt to MWR," which statement was totally false, and was then known by the said PVT L_ to be false . Charge III : violation of the UCMJ, Article 121 (3 Specifications); Spec 1 : Did on 971015, steal an ATM card, of some value, which was the property of PVT J_ P. H_; Spec 2 : Did at or about 0915, 971015, steal $200.00, which was the property of PVT J_ P. H_; Spec 3 : Did at or about 0945, 971015, steal $100.00, which was the property of PVT J_ P. H_.
         Findings: To Charge I and specification thereunder, guilty. To Charge II and specification thereunder, guilty. To Charge III and specifications 1,2 and 3 thereunder, guilty.
         Sentence: Confinement for 5 months, forfeiture of $617.00 pay per month for 5 months, and a bad conduct discharge.
         CA 980504: Sentence approved and, except for that part of the sentence to the BCD, will be executed, but the execution of that part of the sentence adjudging confinement in excess of sixty (60) days will be suspended for a period of six (6) months from the date of this action at which time, unless the suspension is sooner vacated, the suspended part of the sentence will be remitted without further action.
        
980130:  To appellate leave.

980930:  NMCCMR: Affirmed findings and sentence.

990430:  SSPCMO: Article 71c, UCMJ, having been complied with, Bad Conduct discharge will be executed.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 990430 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).

 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 (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. The applicant is not eligible to receive an uncharacterized separation since he served longer than 180 days on active duty. 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. Relief not warranted.

The applicant 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. Representation at a personal appearance hearing is recommended but not required.

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; Article 107, lying; and Article 121, larceny.
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 “ 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:

                  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 | MD00-01076

    Original file (MD00-01076.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 971120 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 | MD04-00660

    Original file (MD04-00660.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Pvt H_ (Applicant) was not unfairly given a Bad Conduct Discharge for this charge. Mr. H_ (Applicant) understands that he will never be able to make up for his lost time in the Marine Corps, however now its time we focus on the future. [Microfiche unreadable]980718: GCMCA [Commander, Marine Corps Base Hawaii] directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.980813: Special Court-Martial.

  • USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-01479

    Original file (MD03-01479.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 20030429 with a bad conduct discharge which was the sentence adjudged by a properly convened special court-martial. PART IV - INFORMATION FOR THE APPLICANT If you believe...

  • USMC | DRB | 2000_Marine | MD00-00997

    Original file (MD00-00997.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 214 (2 copies) PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: None Inactive: USMCR(J) 920520 - 920915 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 920916 Date of Discharge: 960411 Length of Service (years, months, days):Active: 03 06 26 (Doesn't exclude lost or confinement...

  • USMC | DRB | 2002_Marine | MD02-00466

    Original file (MD02-00466.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:Letter from Applicant's Mother (5pgs)Copy of Envelope dated Feb 2001 sent to J_ W. D_Copy of Applicant's Birth Certificate 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) 950606 - 960122 COG Period of Service Under...

  • 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 | 2002_Marine | MD02-00976

    Original file (MD02-00976.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 000403 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). Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent that such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the Applicant's performance and conduct during...

  • USMC | DRB | 2000_Marine | MD00-00147

    Original file (MD00-00147.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Sentence: Reduction to E-1 and a bad conduct discharge. 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 introduced no decisional issues for consideration by the Board. 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2002_Marine | MD02-01133

    Original file (MD02-01133.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. Charge I : violation of the UCMJ, Article 123 (2 Specifications ): Specification 1 : On 910219, with intent to defraud, falsely make the signature of Col K. R. S_, USMC, upon SOI Special Order Number 1-91, which purported to authorize TAD orders, which said writing would, if genuine,...

  • USMC | DRB | 2002_Marine | MD02-00672

    Original file (MD02-00672.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 I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION Charge II: violation of the UCMJ, Article 107: Did on 890419, with intent to deceive sign two official documents, to wit: two requests for issue of Armed Forces Identification Cards, which documents were false in that the date of birth appearing...