Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2002_Marine | MD02-00976
Original file (MD02-00976.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-Pvt, USMC
Docket No. MD02-00976

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 020627, 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 030331. 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

 1. I S_ P. L_ (Applicant) would like to request that my Bad Conduct Discharge be upgraded.
The reason for this request, is that I fel a Bad Conduct Discharge was inappropriate & unfair due to the circumstances. The BCD came as a result of refusal to train. Refusal to Training was the result of physical abuse going on in SOI. Documents attached are the investigative outcome from the offices of Sen. J_ B_ and Cong. C_ H_, in this matter. After the investigation was complete and abuse substantiated, the Sergeants involved were disciplined, but allowed right back in training instructor positions. Therefore, nothing had changed. I would greatly appreciate the consideration to upgrade my discharge, since my love of country and freedom are still my top priorities.

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Copy of DD Form 214
Letter to Applicant from Congressman C_ J_ dtd Mar 9, 1999
 Letter to Congressman C_ J_ from D. L. W_, Col, USMC, Dir, Assistance & Investigations, dtd Feb 22, 1999
Letter to Mrs. T_ R_ for S_ P_ L_ (Applicant) from Senator J_ B_, dtd Mar 9, 1999
Letter to Senator J_ B_ from D. L. W_, Col, USMC, Dir, Assistance & Investigations, dtd Feb 22, 1999
Letter from BCNR to Congressman C_ J_ dtd Apr 4, 2002
Applicant's letter of explanation to the Board dtd Dec 5, 2002

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: None
         Inactive: USMCR(J)                971209 - 980727  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 980728               Date of Discharge: 000403

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

 Active: 01 08 06 (Does not exclude lost time, confinement time and
appellate leave.)
          Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 17                          Years Contracted: 4

Education Level: NFIR
AFQT: NFIR

 Highest Rank: Pvt

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Proficiency: 1.5 (1)                       Conduct: 1.5 (1)

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: Rifle Expert Badge

Days of Unauthorized Absence: (13)981122-981204

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 :

981122:  Applicant to unauthorized absence at 0431 this date; returns from UA status at 1125 on 981205 (13 days/surrendered).

981211:  NJP for violation of UCMJ Article 86: At B Co, Infantry Training Battalion, School of Infantry, Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton, CA, UA from 0431 on 981122 to 1125 on 981205.
         Awarded forfeiture of $216.00 per month for 1 month, restriction and
         extra duties for 14 days. Not appealed.

981214:  Placed in pretrial restriction.

990125:  Special Court-Martial.
         Charge I: violation of the UCMJ Article 91:
         Specification - Having received a lawful order from 1stSgt D.M. J_, USMC, a superior SNCO, then known by the accused to be a superior SNCO, to go out to the parking lot so that he could get his 782 gear so he could train w/Charlie Co, or words to that effect, an order which it was his duty to obey, did, on or about 981203, willfully disobey the same.
         Findings: to Charge I and specification thereunder, guilty.
         Sentence: Confinement for 1 month, forfeiture of $639.00 pay per month for 1 month, and a bad conduct discharge.
         CA 990407: Sentence approved and ordered executed except for the BCD and execution of that portion of the sentence adjudging confinement in excess of 15 days is suspended for a period of twelve months from the date of this action.

990125:  Applicant to confinement in accordance with sentence of SPCM; from confinement back to duty on 990205 (12 days).

990212:  Applicant to appellate leave.

991015:  Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals: Affirmed findings and sentence of SPCM.

000403:  SPCM Supplemental Order: Article 71(c), UCMJ, having been complied with, the Bad Conduct discharge is ordered executed.

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). 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 contends that his discharge is inequitable as the grounds for his court-martial conviction and subsequent separation are extenuated by substantiated reports of mistreatment of trainees. With respect to special courts-martial tried under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the actions of the NDRB are restricted to upgrades based upon clemency only. In addition, all relevant and material details stated in those judicial proceedings are presumed by the NDRB to be established facts. As such, the Applicant's particular case was considered under the pertinent standards of equity to determine if clemency was warranted. The service records that the Board reviewed showed no mitigating or extenuating factors sufficient to offset the seriousness of the offenses for which the discharge was awarded. While the Board did consider the substantiated report of improper treatment of trainees, the Applicant's Record of Trial showed that the Applicant had entered into a pre-trial agreement admitting his guilt. Relief in this basis is therefore denied.

The following is provided for the edification of the Applicant. The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge even though there is no law or regulation that provides for an unfavorable discharge to be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in the civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. 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 may be considered. 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. E vidence of continuing educational pursuits, an employment record, documentation of community service, and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities are examples of documents that may be provided to the Board to receive consideration of relief based on post-service conduct. At this time, the Applicant has provided no such documentation for the Board to consider.

 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 91, Insubordinate conduct (willfully disobeying) a noncommissioned officer.
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 | 2003_Marine | MD03-00814

    Original file (MD03-00814.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The issue presented in this Application is whether or not my Bad Conduct Discharge from the U.S. Marine Corps, which was adjudged at a special court martial on 8 August 1990, should be upgraded to Honorable. However, at the time I requested relief, my discharge had recently been adjudged and the Board properly found that I failed to introduce new evidence of sufficient merit to extenuate, mitigate, or excuse the misconduct of my record, which was a 306 day unauthorized absence.It has how...

  • USMC | DRB | 2002_Marine | MD02-01342

    Original file (MD02-01342.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 19980629 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). 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...

  • 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 | MD02-00731

    Original file (MD02-00731.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 000121 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). The Board deemed the documentation provided by the Applicant as not sufficient for the Board to consider an upgrade of the characterization of discharge. The Manual...

  • USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-00982

    Original file (MD03-00982.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Discharge. Applicant)” Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214 (Member – 4 copy) Applicant’s Résumé CO, 1 st FSSG MARFORPAC, ltr to Applicant dtd May 30, 1997Applicant’s Voluntary Leave Awaiting Appellate Review acknowledgement ltr of Feb 3, 1997Copy of DD Form 214 (Member –1 copy) Applicant’s High School Diploma dtd June 7, 1991 Applicant’s Permission Statement of Dec 2, 2002 to...

  • USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0501179

    Original file (MD0501179.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY ex-Pvt, USMC Docket No. Relief denied.The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of discharge. 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2002_Marine | MD02-00178

    Original file (MD02-00178.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Since leaving the Marine Corps, I have been an honorable member of society, have maintained a clean record, have been employed at the same company since 1996, and am active in church and civic activities. (Issues from Attorney's Brief): Applicant warrants an upgrade to his discharge for the following reasons: While on active duty, he had a clean record, good pro/con marks, had received a Good Conduct Medal, and was just over two months shy of the end of his enlistment at the time he was...

  • 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 | MD04-00608

    Original file (MD04-00608.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD04-00608 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20040225. “I would like the Board to review my reentry code. I would like the Review board to review my reentry code and upgrade it so that I may reenlist.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004 Marine | MD04-00751

    Original file (MD04-00751.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    CA 920324: Sentence approved and ordered executed except for the BCD.911106: To confinement, Sentence of SPCM. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 19930715 with a bad conduct discharge which was the sentence adjudged by a properly convened special court-martial. 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...