Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2002_Marine | MD02-00411
Original file (MD02-00411.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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


ex-LCpl, USMC
Docket No. MD02-00411

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 020225, 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 030214. 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. 6210.3.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION


Issues, as submitted

 1. I, R_ M_, was discharged on a pattern of misconduct. I feel that there was no pattern of misconduct. In the three years that I was in the Marine Corps I was only in trouble twice. I would like my discharge upgraded so I can receive my Montgomery G.I. Bill.
Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Copies of DD Form 214 (2)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: USMC              None
          Inactive: USMCR(J)                980114 - 980310  COG
Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 980311               Date of Discharge: 010302

 Length of Service (years, months, days):
         Active: 02 11 22
          Inactive: None
Age at Entry: 19                          Years Contracted: 5

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 69
Highest Rank: LCpl

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):
Proficiency: 4.0 (6)                       Conduct: 3.9 (6)

 Military Decorations: None
Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: Rifle Sharpshooter Badge

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: 1
Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance):

GENERAL UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6210.3.
Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

981001:  Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct. [Violation of Article 86 on 980904 at 0615 from Morning muster, on 980904 at 0631 from morning muster, and again on 980918 at 0801 until 980920 at 1540. Violation of Article 91 by being disrespectful towards a NCO by raising your voice, shaking your fists, and saying, "Don't talk to me like that, I'm 19 years old.” Violation of Article 92 by driving a POV to school after being told not to.] Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.
981001:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Did at AMS-2, MATSG on or about 0616, 980904, fail to go to appointed place of duty, to wit: Morning muster; violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Did at AMS-2, MATSG on or about 0631, 980904, fail to go to appointed place of duty, to wit: Morning muster; violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Did at AMS-2, MATSG, on or about 1801, 980918, without authority, absent herself from her appointed place of duty , to wit: AMS-1, MATSG, NATTC, NAS, Pensacola, FL, and did remain so absent until on or about 1540, 980920; violation of UCMJ, Article 91: Did at AMS-1, MATSG, on or about 0800, 980904, was disrespectful to SGT C_ by raising her voice, and shaking her fists, and saying, "Don't talk to me like that, I'm 19 years old;” violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Did, at AMS-1, MATSG, on or about 980904, violate a lawful verbal order, to wit: By driving her POV to school after being told not to.
         Award: Forfeiture of $463.00 pay per month for 2 months (suspended for 4 months), restriction for 60 days. No indication of appeal in the record.

 990422:  Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct. [Violation of Article 91, disrespect toward a NCO; contempt towards Corporal C_.] Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.

990515:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence, missed PT muster at 0600, 990428; violation of UCMJ, Article 107: Making false official statements.
         Award: Forfeiture of $200.00 pay per month for 1 month, reduction to E-1. No indication of appeal in the record.
000_11:  Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct. [Unsatisfactory performance of duties while assigned as Squadron Duty ___; made entries that were irrelevant and childish. These entries have no place in an official military log book. Showed immaturity and disrespect toward this official record and total disregard for orders.] Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.
000407:  Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct. [Two violations of Article 86, unauthorized absence, on 990205 and 990302; and two violations of Article 91, disrespect towards a NCO; both occurring on 990302.] Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.
000915:  Applicant failed to qualify for rifle marksmanship (Applicant's score 09/unqualified).

 001113:  Applicant failed to pass Marine Corps PFT (Applicant's score 168/FAIL, Run time: 31:09).
001130:  Applicant failed to qualify for rifle marksmanship (Applicant's score 12/unqualified).
001204:  Applicant failed to pass Marine Corps PFT (Applicant's score 191/FAIL, Run time: 31:49).
001204:  Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct. [Physical Fitness Test Failure.] Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.
001213:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and unsatisfactory performance. Specifically, failure to correct disciplinary infractions and maintain Marine Corps training standards.
001214:  Commanding Officer recommended discharge under honorable conditions (general) by reason of unsatisfactory performance and misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct. The factual basis for this recommendation was the history of minor disciplinary infractions, twice failing a PFT, and twice failing to qualify with the M16A2 Service Rifle.
010201:  Applicant advised of her rights and having elected 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.

 010201:  Applicant's conditional waiver of Administrative Board.
010208:  SJA review determined the case sufficient in law and fact.
010212:  GCMCA [Commanding General, 3d Marine Aircraft] directed the Applicant's discharge under honorable conditions (general) 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 010302 under honorable conditions (general) for misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct (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. A Marine may be separated when there is a documented series of at least three minor disciplinary infractions, during the current enlistment, of a nature which have been or would have been appropriately disciplined under Article 15, UCMJ, nonjudicial punishment. No other narrative reason more clearly describes the circumstances surrounding the Applicant’s processing for administrative separation. A characterization of service of under honorable conditions (general) 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) on two occasions and adverse counseling entries on other occasions that could have been subject to nonjudicial punishment. 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 regulate good order and discipline in the naval service, and falls short of that required for an honorable characterization of service. An upgrade to honorable would be inappropriate. It must be noted that most Marines serve honorably and well and therefore earn honorable discharges. In fairness to those Marines, commanders and separation authorities are tasked to ensure that undeserving Marines receive no higher characterization than is due. Relief denied.
The Veterans Administration determines eligibility for post-service benefits, not the NDRB. There is no requirement or law that grants recharacterization solely on the issue of obtaining veterans’ benefits and this issue does not serve to provide a foundation upon which the Board can grant relief. 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 inequity must have existed during the period of enlistment in question. No such error or inequity 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. Relief denied.

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



Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)
A. Paragraph 6210, MISCONDUCT , of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16E), effective 31 Jan 97 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 91, disrespect to a NCO, and Article 107, false official statements.
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

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004 Marine | MD04-01352

    Original file (MD04-01352.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflects his willful failure to meet the requirements of his contract with the U.S. Marine Corps and falls far short of that required for an upgrade of his characterization of service. As of this time, the Applicant has not provided any documentation for the Board to consider. The names, and votes of the members of the Board are recorded on the original of this document and may be obtained...

  • 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 | 2001_Marine | MD01-00320

    Original file (MD01-00320.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. Two young children, a wife, a job, bills, freedom and alcohol problem all in just a few short years (18yrs-21yrs of age). rd Marine Aircraft Wing] directed the applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.920529: Counseled concerning the VA Alcohol program, declined to enroll...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004 Marine | MD04-00483

    Original file (MD04-00483.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    991118: Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct. 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2000_Marine | MD00-00030

    Original file (MD00-00030.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: None Inactive: USMCR(J) 861122 - 870504 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 870505 Date of Discharge: 890630 Length of Service (years, months, days):Active: 02 01 26 Inactive:...

  • USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-00097

    Original file (MD03-00097.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD03-00097 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 20021015, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. 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: None Inactive: USMCR(J) 970613 - 980210 COG Period of Service...

  • USMC | DRB | 2000_Marine | MD00-00320

    Original file (MD00-00320.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD00-00320 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 000105, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. Thank you for all of your help in this matter.” The NDRB reviewed the applicant’s service record and found the discharge awarded to be equitable for the applicant’s service. Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent that such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant’s...

  • USMC | DRB | 1999_Marine | MD99-01245

    Original file (MD99-01245.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Decision A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 000525. Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events : 970527: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86:Specification: Unauthorized absence from appointed place of duty, to wit: Formation for Machine Gun Shoot on 0530, 20May97. 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).The...

  • USMC | DRB | 2002_Marine | MD02-01318

    Original file (MD02-01318.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD02-01318 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020910, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. 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. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant,...

  • USMC | DRB | 2000_Marine | MD00-00787

    Original file (MD00-00787.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The discharge shall remain: UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Misconduct-Pattern of misconduct (administrative discharge board required but waived), authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 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 issues, the Board found no evidence of addiction. At this time the applicant has not provided sufficient...