Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2002_Marine | MD02-00671
Original file (MD02-00671.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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


ex-LCpl, USMC
Docket No. MD02-00671

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 020409, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. The Applicant requested a personal appearance hearing before the Board in the Washington National Capital Region. The Applicant listed a civilian counsel as the representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A personal appearance discharge review hearing was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 021105. 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 at the time of issue. 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. 6210.6.
 A personal appearance discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on XXXXXX. 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. 6210.6.

 If appropriate add the following:
 The NDRB did note an administrative error on the original DD Form 214. Block 28, Narrative Reason for Separation should read: “_____________” vice “__________”. The original DD Form 214 should be corrected or reissued as appropriate.







THIS IS THE CORRECT SHELL FOR COSO, EFFECTIVE 31 JAN 97 UNTIL PRESENT.

For SPD Code’s GKQ1, HKQ1, JKQ1, GKD1, JKD1, and HKD1, the Narrative Reason for Separation is “MISCONDUCT” (Listed on page A-6 of MCO P1900.16E, effective 18 Aug 95)

SPD               English Description

GKQ1              Commission of a serious offense – all other (with board)
 HKQ1              Commission of a serious offense – all other (board required but waived)
JKQ1     Commission of a serious military or civilian offense (no board)
GKD1     Absent without leave (no board required)
 JKD1     Absent without leave (with board)
HKD1     Absent without leave (board required but waived)

Characterization of service is written “HONORABLE”, “GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)” or “UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS” ( See page B-7 of MCO P1900.16E, effective 18 Aug 95)


PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION


 Issues, as submitted

1. The Applicant requested an upgrade to his characterization of service based upon his post-service conduct.
Documentation
In addition to the service record, and previous case, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Copy of NMCAM Citation (2 pages)
 Copy of photo of DI School class
 Employment history
Drug test form dated October 21, 2002
 Letter from Okaloosa-Walton Community College dated March 5, 2001
 Certification dated April 2, 2001
Copy of Letter of Appreciation
 Certificate from Okaloosa-Walton Community College
Copy of fitness reports (4 pages)
Copy of Diploma for completion of USA Individual Infantry Training
Character reference letter from Cpl. D_ M. S_
Character reference letter from Cpl. M_ H_
Character reference letter from Capt. T. B_ (5 copies)
Copy of police record check dated April 25, 2002

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: USA                        880812 - 881110  HON
 USMC             900716 - 940120  HON
          Inactive: USMCR(J)                900424 - 900715  COG
Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 940121               Date of Discharge: 980115

 Length of Service (years, months, days):
         Active: 03 11 25
          Inactive: None
Age at Entry: 24                          Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 12 GED           AFQT: 32
Highest Rank: Sgt

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

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NAM, MUC, GCM, SSDR with 1 Star, AFEM, NDSM, Certificate of Commendation (2), Letter of Appreciation, MM (2), SASM with 1 Star, UNM, JMU

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None
Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance):

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT, authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6210.6.
Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

940121:  Applicant reenlisted for 4 years.
941222:  Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct. [Disenrollment from Drill Instructor School Class 1-95 due to not maintaining qualifications for DI duty IAW MCO 1326.6B by failing to master course requirements.] Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.

960213:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 128: Assault PFC by pushing him.
         Award: Forfeiture of $343 per month for 1 month, extra duty for 7 days. No indication of appeal in the record.
970224:  Copy of Applicant's voluntary statement to Criminal Investigation Division in service record (4 pages).
970710:  Special Court-Martial.
 Charge I: violation of the UCMJ, Article 81:
Specification: Conspire with PFC on 23Dec96.
 Charge II: violation of the UCMJ, Article 107 (2 specifications):
 Specification 1: Make an official statement by presenting false official
 PCS orders on 23Dec96.
 Specification 2: Make an official statement by presenting false official PCS orders on 15Jan97.
Charge III: violation of the UCMJ, Article 123 (2 specifications):
 Specification 1: Utter a certain writing in the following words and figures, to wit: PCS orders dated 23Dec96, issued by CO, 7 th MTBN, 1 st FSSG, CamPen, CA to report to I & I Staff, San Juan, Puerto Rico, no later than 31Jan97 for duty, a writing which would, if genuine, apparently operate to the legal harm of another, which writing was, as he then well knew, falsely made, and which writing was used to the legal harm of Shadow Way Apartments in that Sgt was allowed to break his lease without penalty and void payment of $605.00.
Specification 2: Utter a certain writing in the following words and figures, to wit: PCS orders dated 23Dec96, issued by CO, 7 th MTBN, 1 st FSSG, CamPen, CA to report to I & I Staff, San Juan, Puerto Rico, no later than 31Jan97 for duty, a writing which would, if genuine, apparently operate to the legal harm of another, which writing was, as he then well knew, falsely made, and which writing was used to the legal harm of Department De Hacienda, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, in that Sgt was allowed to bring his automobile into Puerto Rico without paying a luxury car tax of $3,568.25.
Findings: to Charge I, II and III and specifications thereunder, guilty.
Sentence: Forfeiture of $50.00 per month for 6 months, restriction for 2 months, reduction to LCpl, and punitive letter of reprimand.
CA 970710: Sentence approved and ordered executed.
970807:  Commanding Officer disapproved Applicant's request for clemency.
970911:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.
970912:  Applicant advised of his rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge Board.
970912:  Commanding Officer recommended discharge under honorable conditions (general) by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense. The factual basis for this recommendation was Applicant was found guilty of conspiring with a Lance Corporal to make a false official statement to SNM's landlord, by preparing false official permanent change of station (PCS) orders; of making a false official statement to Ms. J_ E_ L_, the manager of Shadow Way Apartments, Oceanside, California, by presenting those false PCS orders, which allowed SNM to break his lease without penalty and avoid payment of $605.00; and of defrauding Department De Hacienda, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, by presenting false PCS orders to their representatives, which allowed SNM to bring his vehicle into Puerto Rico, without paying a luxury tax of $3,568.25.

971118:  An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence and by unanimous vote, found that the Applicant had committed misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense, that the misconduct warranted separation, and by a vote of 2 to 1 recommended a general discharge (under honorable conditions).

980112:  SJA review determined the case sufficient in law and fact.
980112:  GCMCA [Commanding General, 1 st Force Service Support Group] directed the Applicant's discharge under honorable conditions (general) by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.
010928:  NDRB documentary record review Docket Number MD01-00628 conducted. Determination: discharge proper and equitable; relief not warranted.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 980115 under honorable conditions (general) 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 Applicant’s discharge characterization accurately reflects his service to his country. 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. While the Board found the Applicant’s post service conduct to be commendable, the Board determined that the Applicant’s record of service does not support an upgrade to Honorable. Relief not warranted.


Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)
A. Paragraph 6210, MISCONDUCT of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16E), effective 31 January 1997 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 81, conspiracy; Article 107, false official statements; Article 123, forgery.
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 | 2001_Marine | MD01-00628

    Original file (MD01-00628.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant’s overall service record and positive attitude he displayed after his court-martial were likely factors that contributed to the separation authority granting a discharge under honorable conditions (general), rather than under other than honorable conditions. 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 Manual for Courts-Martial authorizes the...

  • USMC | DRB | 1999_Marine | MD99-00095

    Original file (MD99-00095.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    My discharge Under Other Than Honorable Conditions was based on one isolated event in 36 months of service. The applicant has provided sufficient documentation of his good character and conduct that the Board recommends partial relief by upgrading the applicant’s discharge to UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL)/Misconduct – Commission of a serious offense (all other) with admin discharge board, authority. You should read Enclosure (5) of the Directive before submitting such a complaint.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004 Marine | MD04-00516

    Original file (MD04-00516.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DRAFT DECISIONAL DOCUMENT ex-LCpl, USMC Docket No. The only change from MCO P1900.16C is: “administrative” vice “admin”) GKQ1 Misconduct-Commission of a serious offense (all other) with administrative discharge boardHKQ1 Misconduct- Commission of a serious offense (all other) administrative discharge board required but waived For SPD Codes GKD1, Misconduct-Absent without leave (with administrative discharge board)...

  • USMC | DRB | 1999_Marine | MD99-00965

    Original file (MD99-00965.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Block 28, Narrative Reason for Separation should read: “Commission of a serious offense – all other (board required but waived” vice “Commission of a serious offense – all other (with board)”. Issues Prior to the documentary discharge review, the applicant introduced no issues as block 8 on the DD Form 293 is blank. 971118: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense as...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01135

    Original file (ND03-01135.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. Decision A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20040430. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 19940121 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A).

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004 Marine | MD04-00093

    Original file (MD04-00093.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    This was not the separation I agreed to nor does it reflect my 14 years of spotless service, including 4 Good Conduct Medals. The Applicant’s characterization of service is determined by the separation authority, not the Applicant’s Commanding Officer. The separation authority directed the Applicant’s discharge due to the commission of a serious offense and assigned a separation code of “HKQ1.” An erroneous DD214 was issued and later properly corrected by the issuing of a DD215 that...

  • USMC | DRB | 2002_Marine | MD02-00197

    Original file (MD02-00197.rtf) Auto-classification: 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. The applicant did not provide sufficient documentation to warrant an upgrade to his discharge. 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...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130017919

    Original file (20130017919.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: The applicant's request, statement, and supporting documents are provided by his counsel. The applicant's counsel argues that at the time the applicant completed the DDESS enrollment form on 30 April 2007 his assignment in Puerto Rico was scheduled to terminate on 25 July 2008 and the applicant had not been informed that his request for extension had been denied; therefore, the applicant did not make a false official statement. In regard to...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01117

    Original file (ND02-01117.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The NDRB found credible evidence of misconduct in the service records of the Applicant. Verifiable proof of 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. At this time, the Applicant has not provided such documentation for the Board to consider an upgrade.

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2003 | AR2003099113

    Original file (AR2003099113.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Issue(s) of propriety and/or equity submitted by applicant or counsel. Applicant's issue(s) of propriety and/or equity: ( X ) Same as those listed on DD Form 293 and Part IV, Section A of this case report and directive. Minority views: NONE PART VII - BOARD ACTION SECTION B - Verification and Authentication Case report reviewed and verified Ms. McKim-Spilker Case Reviewing Official PART VIII - DIRECTIVE/CERTIFICATION SECTION A - DIRECTIVE NONE SECTION B - CERTIFICATION Approval...