Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2002_Marine | MD02-01305
Original file (MD02-01305.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-2NDLT, USMC
Docket No. MD02-01305

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 020912, 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 030424. 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)/UNACCEPTABLE CONDUCT, authority: SECNAVINST 1920.6B and MARCORSEPMAN Par. 4102.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as submitted

 1. I was on active duty in the United States Marine Corps for almost twelve years. In that time, I did not receive any disciplinary action in the form of a page 11 or through any legal proceedings. I was meritoriously promoted to Corporal and I successfully completed the Marine Enlisted Commissioning Education Program. I graduated in the top 10 percent of my Officer Candidate School class and I earned the rank of Staff Sergeant before I was commissioned. I got in trouble with the civilian authorities in Stafford Country, Virginia that I still contend that I am innocent of those charges. With no charges from the Marine Corps, I was discharged for unacceptable conduct with no severance pay or any other benefits. If I had stayed an enlisted Marine and not made the attempt to better myself and my contribution to the Marine Corps, I would have been entitled to a board of inquiry, but I was an entry level officer, I was discharged without the opportunity to explain my situation in front of the men that discharged me. I am a veteran of Desert Shield/Storm and I upheld the honor of the title Marine for the duration of my service and I continue to today. I am asking that my discharge be upgraded to Honorable to reflect my twelve years of honorable service to my country.

Applicant check box "I have listed additional issues as an attachment to this application," however, no additional issues found.

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Character Reference letter from Applicant's civilian Attorney, J_ C. H_, LtCol, USMC, retired, dtd Apr 25, 2001
Letter of Recommendation to Retain Applicant from Maj J_ M. B_, USMC, dtd Mar 15, 2001
Letter of Recommendation to Retain Applicant from Capt J. D. K_, USMC, dtd Jan 10, 2001
Letter of Recommendation to Retain Applicant from Capt M_ A_, USMC, dtd Jan 9, 2001
Character Reference letter from Capt D_ J. C_, USMC, dtd Apr 26, 2001
Character Reference letter from J_ R. H_, BrHd, dtd Jan 7, 2001
Letter of Recommendation from Capt (sel) F_ A. J_, USMC, dtd Apr 7, 2001
Character Reference letter from 1stLt R_ K. M_, USMC, dtd Apr 10, 2001
Character Reference letter from 1stLt R_ H. E_, USMC, dtd Apr 11, 2001
Character Reference letter from 2ndLt K. R. H_, USMC, dtd Apr 6, 2001
Character Reference letter from 2ndLt M. A. N_, USMC, dtd Apr 6, 2001
Character Reference letter from 2ndLt M_ A. B_, USMC, dtd Jan 8, 2001
Character Reference letter from 2ndLt P_ B. E_, USMCR, dtd Jan 9, 2000
Character Reference letter from 2ndLt C_ R. B_, USMC, dtd Jan 10, 2001
Character Reference letter from 2ndLt J. L. W_, USMC, dtd Apr 26, 2001
14 Fitness Reports
Copy of DD Form 214

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USMCR(J)                900319 - 900408  COG
         Active: USMC              900409 - 941020  HON
                                             941021 - 980202  HON
                                             980203 - 990318  HON

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Commission: 990319               Date of Discharge: 020208

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 02 10 20
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 28                          Years Contracted: 6

 Education Level: 16                        AFQT: 90

 Highest Rank: 2NDLT

 Final Officer Performance Evaluation Averages : All officer performance reports were available to the Board for review.

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM, SWASM, KLM, MM, GCM (w/1*), SSDR, LoA (2), JSAM, JSCM, N&MCAM (2), CoC, JMUA

Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/UNACCEPTABLE CONDUCT, authority: SECNAVINST 1920.6B and MARCORSEPMAN Par. 4102.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

990319:  Accepted officer appointment to 2NDLT.

 000716:  Applicant arrested and charged with three counts of indecent exposure. [Extracted from Commandant, Marine Corps letter to the Secretary of the Navy, dtd 5 Dec 2001.]
001017:  Applicant found guilty of three counts of indecent exposures and sentenced to pay a $100 fine for each charge. Applicant moved for a trial de novo in Stafford County Circuit Court. [Extracted from Commandant, Marine Corps letter to the Secretary of the Navy, dtd 5 Dec 2001.]
010314:  Applicant found guilty of only 2 counts of indecent exposure by Stafford County Circuit Court and was sentenced to pay a fine of $400. Since Applicant had already paid $300 pursuant to the District Court's sentence, he was required to remit an additional $100. [Extracted from Commandant, Marine Corps letter to the Secretary of the Navy, dtd 5 Dec 2001.]
010628:  Commanding Officer, Basic School, Marine Corps Combat Development Command, Quantico, VA, recommended Applicant's retention in lieu of separation for misconduct due to civilian conviction of two counts of indecent exposure and failing to demonstrate acceptable qualities of leadership required of an officer in his grade when he lied to a police officer.

010923:  President, Marine Corps University/Commanding General, nonconcurring with the CO, The Basic School, recommended to the Secretary of the Navy that Applicant be required to show cause for retention in the Marine Corps.

011015:  CG, Training and Education Command, recommended Applicant be administratively separated as a probationary officer and his service be characterized as General (Under Honorable Conditions) and the Applicant be required to show cause for retention.

011031:  CG, Marine Corps Combat Development Command, concurring with the CG, Training and Education Command, recommended Applicant be separated under honorable conditions (general) and that he show cause for retention.

011205:  Commandant of the Marine Corps recommended to the Secretary of the Navy, Applicant's discharge under honorable conditions (general) due to unacceptable conduct.

020103:  ASN (M&RA) approved Applicant's discharge, as recommended.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 020208 under honorable conditions (general) due to unacceptable conduct (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 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 conviction in a civilian court for indecent exposure. The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service falls short of that required for an honorable characterization of service. The separation authority considered the Applicant’s overall service record in determining his character of service and the Board found no reason to overturn the presumption of regularity in this case. An upgrade to honorable would be inappropriate. While the Applicant claims he was innocent of the charges, the Board found no documentation explaining how or why he should be considered innocent. 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. That the Applicant was afforded no right to an administrative discharge board or other board of inquiry in this case does not constitute an inequity or impropriety. Relief denied.

 The Applicant’s discharge characterization accurately reflects his service to his 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 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, or good conduct in civilian life, 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. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 1920.6B (ADMINISTRATIVE SEPARATION OF OFFICERS) effective 13 Dec 1999 until Present establishes policies, standards and procedures for the administrative separation of Navy and Marine Corps officers from the naval service in accordance with Title 10, United States Code and DoD Directive 1332.30 of 14 Mar 97.

B. Chapter 4, Paragraph 4102 of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16E, effective 18 Aug 1995), PROCESSING FOR SEPARATION.

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 | 2002_Marine | MD02-00220

    Original file (MD02-00220.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD02-00220 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020108, requested that the reason for the discharge be changed to RESIGN. 991221: Punitive Letter of Reprimand issued to applicant.991222: Applicant voluntarily tendered his unqualified resignation for cause in lieu of processing for administrative separation for cause.991223: CO, 1 st MCD, Garden City, NJ forwarded applicant's resignation for cause letter to the Secretary of the Navy recommending...

  • USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-01127

    Original file (MD03-01127.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. 990512: DD Form 215 issued to Applicant correcting the characterization of service as “under other than honorable conditions.” 990621: Applicant’s Attorney advised the Commanding Officer, Headquarters & Service Company, U.S. Marine Corps Forces, Atlantic, that Applicant was issued a DD Form 214 reflecting a “general (under honorable conditions)” and a...

  • USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-00888

    Original file (MD03-00888.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD03-00888 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030409. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. 010717: Commanding officer recommended approval of Applicant’s request for resignation, but recommended discharge with a general (under honorable conditions) due to substandard performance of duty and misconduct.

  • USMC | DRB | 2001_Marine | MD01-00751

    Original file (MD01-00751.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant's representative requested that the reason for separation be change to "Secretarial Authority". Dear members of the board: The following issues are the reasons my discharge should be upgraded from a general discharge to an honorable discharge. Additionally, advised applicant is submitting a letter of resignation and requested leave awaiting separation.990730: Applicant tendered a resignation of commission in lieu of processing for administrative separation for cause,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004 Marine | MD04-01147

    Original file (MD04-01147.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable and the reason for the discharge be changed to Secretarial Authority. Whether an other-than-honorable discharge was an appropriate characterization.2. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 1920.6B (ADMINISTRATIVE SEPARATION OF OFFICERS) effective 13 Dec 1999 until Present establishes policies, standards and procedures for the administrative separation of Navy and Marine Corps...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004 Marine | MD0401147

    Original file (MD0401147.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable and the reason for the discharge be changed to Secretarial Authority. The summary of service clearly documents that unacceptable conduct was the reason the applicant was discharged. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 1920.6B (ADMINISTRATIVE SEPARATION OF OFFICERS) effective 13 Dec 1999 until Present establishes policies, standards and procedures for the administrative separation...

  • USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-00848

    Original file (MD03-00848.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. In the acknowledgement letter, the Applicant was informed the Board first conducts a record review prior to any personal appearance hearing. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the Applicant’s service was discovered by the NDRB.

  • USMC | DRB | 2002_Marine | MD02-00603

    Original file (MD02-00603.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    000406: Applicant elected not to appeal the imposition of NJP, but elected to submit a request for resignation in lieu of administrative separation processing.000410: Punitive Letter of Reprimand issued to Applicant.000410: Applicant requested appeal of the non-judicial punishment.undated: Commanding Officer reported to CMC Applicant's non-judicial punishment and recommended Applicant be required to show cause for retention through the notification procedures, Applicant's request for...

  • USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0500419

    Original file (MD0500419.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    By unanimous vote, the BOI recommended that that Applicant be separated from the naval service for the reasons listed above and the service be characterized as other than honorable.020211: Applicant’s request denied. 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 (B and C).The Applicant contends that his discharge was improper because the Board of Inquiry (BOI), which...

  • USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0501120

    Original file (MD0501120.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. This letter and supporting documentation is my personal request for a review of my discharge issued by the United States Marine Corps, though the Secretary of the Navy, on 15 October 2003. While 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...