Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2002_Marine | MD02-00393
Original file (MD02-00393.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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


ex-Pvt, USMC
Docket No. MD02-00393

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 020213, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable, the separation code be deleted and the reason for the discharge be changed to Service no longer Required. The Applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. The Applicant did not designate a representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 021022. 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 and narrative reason of the discharge shall not change. The discharge shall remain: UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Separation in lieu of trial by court-martial, authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6419.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION


 Issues, as submitted

1. To Records Review Board:
My name is D_ R. A_ and my service name was Pvt. D_ R. D_. I went into the Marines 14 years ago to MCRD, San Diego, CA. On 4-11-88 I went UA and had a summary court martial and spent 20 days in the Brigg at Camp Pendelton, CA. I again went UA on 10-23-88 to 11-2-88 to my hometown of Las Vegas due to family problems. These were acts of a young and immature teenager. If I could go back in time these acts of adolescence and stupidity would have never happened. I am not proud of what I did. Today, I continue to carry the lessons I learned in the Marines: respect, honor, and commitment. Since my discharge, I have been to school and have two degrees an A.A. degree in liberal arts and an A.S. degree in physical therapist assistant. I have played an active role in the community helping high school students as a volunteer wrestling coach in Port Orange, FL and working as a companion to the mentally challenged. I have earned my license as a Physical Therapist Assistant and treat numerous patients using the skills I learned from the Marines to help me.
Currently, I plan to pursue a career in Law Enforcement and cannot do so because of poor decisions made as a teenager. My "Other than honorable" discharge is the only obstacle in achieving my goal to become a police officer. Since my discharge I have never been in trouble with the law and have been active with helping others in the community. I cannot change the past and I am not proud of my actions in the service. Please strongly consider changing my discharge to Honorable and remove paragraphs #24, #26,#28 on my D.D. form 214. I would make a good policeman and further serve the community with the skills learned in the Marines. I am 32 years old and have learned a lot since my younger days. Please do not let the mistakes of a teenager hinder me from pursuing a career as a law enforcement officer.
Respectfully,
(Signed by Applicant)
Enclosures: Court order name change
Associates in Arts degree
Associate in Science degree
 .
Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Copy of DD Form 214 (2 copies)
Circuit Court Change of Name Judgment dtd 28 May 1997
 Character Reference ltr from P_ J_, ATC/L, PT, HealthSouth, dtd 25 May 2000
 Daytona Beach Community College Associate of Arts Certificate dtd 13 May 1997
Seminole Community College Associate in Science Degree Certificate dtd
2 May 2000
 5 pages from service record

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: None
          Inactive: USMCR(J)                860614 - 870608  COG
Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 870609               Date of Discharge: 890303

 Length of Service (years, months, days):
         Active: 01 08 25
         Inactive: None
Age at Entry: 18                          Years Contracted: 6

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 52
Highest Rank: LCpl

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):
Proficiency: 4.2 (6)              Conduct: 3.8 (6)

 Military Decorations: None
Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: None

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: 36
Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance):

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Separation in lieu of trial by court-martial, authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6419.
Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

880105:  Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct [alcohol-related incident].

880411:  Unauthorized absence since 0530 from MCSFCO, NASNI, San Diego, CA.
880508:  Surrendered at 1405 at MCSFCO, NASNI, San Diego, CA.

 880524:  Summary Court-Martial.
          Charge I: violation of the UCMJ, Article 86.
         Specification: unauthorized absence from 880411 to 880508 (27 days).
          Finding: to Charge I and the specification thereunder, guilty.
          Sentence: Forfeiture of pay $447.00 per month for 1 month, confined at hard labor for 25 days, reduced to E-1.
         CA action 880531: Sentence approved and ordered executed.
          SA action 880602: Sentence approved; found correct in law and fact.
880524:  To confinement.

 880613:  From confinement to full duty.
881023:  Incident/Complaint Report: Post #3 Vehicle inspection, possible possession of an illegal substance with possession of syringes. Completed 1525, 23 Oct 88, military offense, assumed by NIS at 1602, 23 Oct 88.
881023:  Unauthorized absence from MCSFCO, NASNI, San Diego, CA.

 881102:  Surrendered onboard MCSFCO, NASNI, San Diego, CA.

881123:  NIS, Forensic Science Lab report of evidence obtained from Applicant.

890109:  Applicant, having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Art 27B, requested discharge for the good of the service to escape trial by court- martial. In the request the Applicant noted that his counsel had fully explained the elements of the offenses for which he was charged and that he understood the elements of the offenses. He further certified a complete understanding of the negative consequences of his actions and that characterization of service would be under other than honorable conditions. The Applicant admitted guilt to the following violations of the UCMJ, Article 86: unauthorized absence from 23 Oct 88 to 2 Nov 88 and Article 92 (2 Specs): Spec 1 - on or about 23 Oct 88, violate a lawful general order, to wit: by wrongfully having in possession 17.0 milliliters of testosterone propionate, 109 tablets of stanozolol, and 87 tablets of methyltestosterone and methandrostenolone, all anabolic steroids, a controlled substance. Spec 2 - on or about 23 Oct 88, violated a lawful order, to wit: by wrongfully possessing drug paraphernalia, to wit: 6 syringes.
890216:  SJA review determined the case sufficient in law and fact.

 890217:  GCMCA [Commander, MCRD/Western Recruiting Region, San Diego, CA] determined that Applicant had no potential for further service, that separation in lieu of trial by court-martial was in the best interest of the service, and directed discharge under conditions other than honorable by reason of conduct triable by courts-martial.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

 Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 890303 under other than honorable conditions in lieu of trial by court-martial (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 has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment opportunities as requested in the issue. The Board’s charter limits its review to a determination on the propriety and equity of the discharge. In the Applicant’s case the Board could discern no impropriety or inequity and therefore considered the Applicant’s discharge was proper and equitable. The Board found that the Applicant’s age, education level, and test scores qualified him for enlistment. While he may feel that his immaturity and youth were factors that contributed to his actions, the record clearly reflects his willful disregard for the requirements of military discipline and demonstrated that he was unfit for further service. The record is devoid of evidence that the Applicant was not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions. The Board has no authority to delete blocks on the DD Form 214 unless such information is in error. No other narrative reason more clearly describes the circumstances surrounding the Applicant’s processing for administrative separation other than that currently listed on his DD Form 214. Relief denied.
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, employment record, documentation of community service, certification of non-involvement with civil authorities and credible evidence that the Applicant is drug free, are examples of verifiable documentation that should have been provided to receive consideration for relief, based on post-service conduct. The Board determined that the Applicant’s evidence of post-service conduct did not mitigate the conduct for which he was discharged. 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.

The Applicant may write to the National personnel records Center (Military Personnel Records), 9700 Page Avenue, St. Louis, MO 63132-5100 to obtain a member’s copy of his DD-214 that does not show Blocks 23-30.
Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)
A. Paragraph 6419, SEPARATION IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT-MARTIAL, of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16C), Change 2, effective 15 May 84 until 26 Jun 89.

 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 and Article 92, failure to obey a lawful general order.
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

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004 Marine | MD04-01411

    Original file (MD04-01411.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION 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:Secretary of the Navy Council of Review Boards

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00945

    Original file (ND02-00945.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    900202: Naval Medical Clinic, NAS North Island, CA: This 23 year old female technician (Applicant) from Oregon, 12 years formal education, 12 months active duty in the U.S. Navy, married 18 months, unable to [provide] her husband's location, one child from previous relationship is referred to this facility for clinical evaluation following suicidal ideation yesterday and probable suicidal gesture prevented by her roommate. Pt (Applicant) referred to Psychiatry Naval Hospital San Diego for...

  • USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0501530

    Original file (MD0501530.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions). The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review. 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, Article91, insubordinate conduct, Article 107, false official statement, Article 108,...

  • USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-01148

    Original file (MD03-01148.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD03-01148 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030618. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. 020204: GCMCA [Commander, Marine Corps Base, Quantico, VA] determined that Applicant had no potential for further service, that separation in lieu of trial by court-martial was in the best interest of the service, and directed discharge under other than...

  • USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-00575

    Original file (MD03-00575.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD03-00575 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030212. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00251

    Original file (ND02-00251.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:None PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: USN None Inactive: USNR (DEP) 910221 - 910530 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 910531 Date of Discharge: 930222 Length of Service (years, months, days):Active: 01 08 22 Inactive: None CA action 930122: Sentence approved and ordered...

  • USMC | DRB | 2002_Marine | MD02-01208

    Original file (MD02-01208.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD02-01208 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020821, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. On 880812, the Applicant requested separation under conditions other than honorable in lieu of trial by court-martial. Even if the Applicant had accepted the special court-martial, the Board found no reason to believe that his discharge would have been anything except under conditions other...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500774.HR

    Original file (ND0500774.HR.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. The applicant is asking that the Board upgrade his discharge to honorable. 920522: Commanding Officer, USS WILLIAM H STANDLEY (CG 32) recommended to the Bureau of Naval Personnel that the Applicant be discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense.

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00470

    Original file (ND99-00470.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 Copy of Enlisted Performance Evaluation Reports for 87Aug17 to 88Mar18, 86Jul01 to 87Jun30, 87Jul01 to 87Aug16, 88Mar18 to 89Jan26 Copy of Enlisted Performance Record Copy of statement on adverse performance evaluation dated 25 January 1989 Fifteen pages from applicant's service record Copy of special request/authorization dated 13 May...

  • USMC | DRB | 2001_Marine | MD01-00577

    Original file (MD01-00577.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION 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). 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.