Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2002_Marine | MD02-00891
Original file (MD02-00891.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-PFC, USMC
Docket No. MD02-00891

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 020530, 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 designate a representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 030311. 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)/SECRETARIAL AUTHORITY, authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6214.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as submitted

 1. During my service in the U.S.M.C., I was a highly motivated marine. I did my job the best I knew how and obeyed orders I was given. Upon receiving my general court martial, the only punishment I was to receive was a reduction in rank and forfeiture of pay. I accepted that as it was handed down. The only thing I was charged with was Breach of Peace for allowing music to be played too loudly in my barracks room. After my court martial convened, it was my understanding that it was over. Then it came down to me that I was being separated from the Marine Corps. That was not part of my court martial punishment, and was never told where this was coming from. I hope you will consider my case and upgrade my discharge to "Honorable" for the honorable service I gave.
Documentation
Only the service and medical records were reviewed, as the Applicant did not provide additional documentation for the Board to consider.

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: None
         Inactive: USMCR(J)                920714 - 930620  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 930621               Date of Discharge: 961216

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 03 05 26
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 19                          Years Contracted: 6

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 67

 Highest Rank: LCpl

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Proficiency: 4.4 (7)              Conduct: 4.4 (7)

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM, SSDR, Rifle Sharpshooter Badge, Pistol Expert Badge

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance):

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/SECRETARIAL AUTHORITY, authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6214.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

941101:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Violated SqdnO 11111.2D by possessing liquor in the barracks.
 Awarded forfeiture of $484.00 per month for 1 month, restriction and
extra duties for 30 days (30 days extra duty suspended for 6 months). Not appealed.
960814:  Summary Court-Martial.
         Charge I: violation of the UCMJ, Article 116.
         Specification 1: In that LCpl (Applicant) did at Marine Corps Air Station, Cherry Point, NC, on or about 27 June 1996, cause a breach of peace by wrongfully playing racially derogatory music at a high volume, shouting and singing racially derogatory words in a public place, to wit: Barracks #4310, Marine Corps Air Station, Cherry Point, NC.
         Finding: to Charge I and the specification thereunder, guilty.
         Sentence: Forfeiture of two-thirds of one months pay, reduced to E-2.
         CA action 960822: Sentence approved and ordered executed.
960918:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under honorable conditions (general) by reason of best interest of the service.
960918:          Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not 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.
960918:  Commanding Officer recommended discharge under honorable conditions (general) by reason of separation in the best interest of the service. The factual basis for this recommendation was due to the member's breach of peace by wrongfully playing racially derogatory music at a high volume, shouting and singing racially derogatory words in a public place. Member's conduct was such as to bring discredit upon the service, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline.

960927:  SJA review determined the case sufficient in law and fact.

961104:  Headquarters U.S. Marine Corps recommended to SECNAV discharge under honorable conditions (general) in the best interest of the service.

961107:  SECNAV (ASN M&RA) directed the Applicant's discharge under honorable conditions (general).

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 961216 under honorable conditions (general) due to the best interest of the service (A). The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (B). 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. 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 non-judicial punishment and a summary court-martial. His participation in a racial incident was valid grounds for processing for administrative separation in the best interest of the service. The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflects his 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. Relief denied.

 The Applicant’s discharge characterization accurately reflects his service to his country. Normally, to permit relief, an error or inequity must have existed during the period of enlistment in question. No such error or inequity is evident 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, for good conduct in civilian life, or to enhance employment opportunities, 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 6214, SEPARATION IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE SERVICE , of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual (MCO P1900.16E, effective 960408 until Present).

 B. 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.

C. 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.

D. 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 | 2005_Navy | ND0501559

    Original file (ND0501559.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. The Applicant can provide documentation to support post-service accomplishments or any other evidence related to the discharge at that time. 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

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100026991

    Original file (20100026991.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 26 May 2011 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20100026991 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant's military records show he served honorably in the Regular Army (RA) from 27 June 1975 to 15 February 1978 and from 16 February 1978 to 16 November 1980. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-10, provides that a Soldier will be given a dishonorable discharge pursuant only to an approved sentence of a general court-martial, after completion of appellate review...

  • USMC | DRB | 2002_Marine | MD02-00561

    Original file (MD02-00561.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation Only the Applicant's service record was reviewed, as the Applicant did not provide additional documentation for the Board to consider. 930729: An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence and by unanimous vote, found that the Applicant had committed misconduct due to minor disciplinary infractions, that the misconduct warranted separation, and recommended discharge under honorable conditions (general). The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00035

    Original file (ND03-00035.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    At this time, the applicant has not provided any documentation for the Board to consider. 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 for more than 30 days). 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2001_Marine | MD01-01033

    Original file (MD01-01033.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD01-01033 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010806, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. I respected him, but told him "That's why they don't want fraternizing, because you never know when a superior will feel disrespected". 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).A...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00052

    Original file (ND00-00052.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND00-00052 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 991014, 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, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (D and E).In the applicant’s issue 1, the Board determined this issue is without merit. PART IV - INFORMATION FOR THE APPLICANT If you believe that the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100027026

    Original file (20100027026.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. Army Regulation 672-5-1 (Awards), in effect at the time, provided that the Army Good Conduct Medal was awarded to enlisted Soldiers who had completed a qualifying period of active duty enlisted service. As a result, the Board recommends...

  • USMC | DRB | 2001_Marine | MD01-00115

    Original file (MD01-00115.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD01-00115 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 001031, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. The results of this action was that I arrived at work 55 minutes late. The NDRB is authorized to consider 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 the period of service under review.

  • USMC | DRB | 2001_Marine | MD01-00407

    Original file (MD01-00407.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD01-00407 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010212, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION Issues 1. 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 marital problems experienced by the applicant during his second enlistment are...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00755

    Original file (ND01-00755.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00755 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010514, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to General/under Honorable conditions. After a review of the Former Service Members (FSM) DD Form 293 Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States and all of the evidence assembled for review, we continue to note the contentions as set forth on the application by the appellant of an...