Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2002_Marine | MD02-01317
Original file (MD02-01317.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-Pvt, USMC
Docket No. MD02-01317

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 020910, 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 030722. 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: UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6210.3.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as submitted

 1. The discharge was inequitable because it was the result of an isolated incident in 39 months of service which included into 3 NJP's in 4 months to justify the pattern on misconduct characterization.

2. The discharge was improper because I had requested to be released from active duty months prior to the discharge and the incident leading to the characterization received.

3. The discharge was improper because my signature was forged on NAVMC 10132 (Document 8, Pages 1 and 2).

4. The discharge was improper because I submitted a written complaint to the DoD hotline, reporting an improper mental health referral, numerous MPO's (Military Protection Orders), and mismanagement and abuse of authority by superior officers (Document 7).

5. The discharge was improper because I was denied access to my E-mail account at HQBN HQ USMC, HH after sending a complaint via the internet to the DoD IG. I am protected by the Military Whistleblower Protection Act in section 531 of the FY 95 Defense Authorization Act Pub. L, 103-337, October 5, 1994 from the restrictions that were place upon me.

6. The discharge was inequitable because of the characterization / RE code (Reenlistment Code) received, since the events of September 11 2001, I am unable to enlist in any branch of the U.S. Armed Forces, active duty or reserve.

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Marine Corps Request Mast Application, NAVMC 11296, dated June 20, 2000 (1 page)
Marine Corps Request Mast Application, NAVMC 11296, dated July 7, 2000 (4 page)
Letter from Congressman A_ R_ W_, dated July 17, 2000 (1 page)
Marine Corps Request Mast Application, NAVMC 11296, dated July 14, 2000 (1 page)
Letter from Congressman S_ H_ H_, dated July 24, 2000 (1 page)
Marine Corps Request Mast Application, NAVMC 11296, dated August 16, 2000 (1 page)
Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Complaint (3 pages)
Unit Punishment Book (5812), NAVMC 10132, dated September 18, 2000 (3 pages)
Letter from the Department of Defense, Inspector General, dated September 26, 2000 (1 page)
Applicant's DD Form 214

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: None
         Inactive: USMCR(J)                960410 - 970217  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 970218               Date of Discharge: 001018

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 03 08 01
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 18                          Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 36

 Highest Rank: LCpl

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Proficiency: 4.4 (9)                       Conduct: 4.1 (9)

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: None

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: 2

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6210.3.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

970825:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86:
 Specification: Failed to go at the time prescribed for duty at 0800, 970824, Building M-435.
Awarded forfeiture of $250.00 per month for 2 months, restriction for 30 days. Forfeiture of $100.00 per month for 2 months suspended for 6 months. Not appealed.
970825:  Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct. [Violation of Marine Corps regulation by failing to go at the time prescribed for duty at Building M-435 0800, 970824. This lackadaisical attitude will not be tolerated… This type of behavior is unacceptable.] Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.
980104:  Counseled concerning the following: "IAW MARCORSEPMAN, Appendix J, Reenl Code RE-3C assigned this date. Reason: PCSO orig in response to HUMS request."
000605:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 89:
 Specification: Disrespectful in tone towards Captain D_ during a telephone conversation, and by not properly addressing him as a commissioned officer on 000510.
Violation of UCMJ, Article 91:
Specification: Disrespectful in language towards First Sergeant on 000508, by saying to him "this is bullshit."
Violation of UCMJ, Article 92:
Specification: Failed to obey a lawful order issued by First Sergeant, to wit: to get back in his office on 000508.
Awarded forfeiture of $200.00 per month for 2 months, extra duties for 45 days, reduction to PFC. Extra duty for 45 days suspended for 2 months. Not appealed.
000901:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.
000908:  Applicant advised of his rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge Board.
000918:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (2 specs):
 Specification 1: Absence from appointed place of duty on 0731, 000821 to 1225, 000823 (2 days).
Specification 2: Absence from appointed place of duty on 1301-1400, 000829.
Violation of UCMJ, Article 91:
Specification: Disrespectful in deportment towards First Sergeant, by throwing military protective order (MPO) in the trash can in front of First Sergeant after he handed the MPO to her on 000815.
Awarded forfeiture of $500.00 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to Pvt. Forfeiture of $250.00 pay per month for 2 months suspended for 2 months and restriction for 45 days suspended for 3 months. Not appealed.
000918:  Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct. The factual basis for this recommendation was misconduct documented by a 6105 counseling and two nonjudicial punishments conducted on 25 August 997 and 5 June 2000.

000926:  Applicant submitted a conditional waiver, to waive right to an administrative separation board and request expeditious separation.

001004:  SJA review determined the case sufficient in law and fact.

001004:  GCMCA [Commander, Marine Corps Base, Quantico, VA] directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions 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 001018 under other than honorable conditions 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 pattern of misconduct which include two or more discreditable involvements with civil and/or military authorities or two or more instances of conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline within one enlistment. Such a pattern may include both minor and more serious infractions. A characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions is warranted when the member's conduct constitutes a significant departure from that expected of a Marine. T he Applicant’s service was marred by award of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on three occasions and an adverse counseling entry. 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 would be inappropriate. Relief denied.

Issue 2. The Board found no indication that the Applicant was inequitably or improperly denied an early release from her enlistment contract prior to her processing for administrative separation for misconduct. Relief denied.

Issue 3. The Board found nothing to corroborate the Applicant’s allegation that the NJP she received on 000918 is improper because her signature on the NAVMC 10132 is not her own. Relief denied.

Issues 4 and 5. The Applicant’s unsubstantiated complaints do not mitigate her own misconduct. The reference cited by the Applicant concerning “whistleblower” protection does not invalidate her administrative separation for misconduct. The record is devoid of evidence that the Applicant was not responsible for her conduct or that she should not be held accountable for her actions. Relief denied.

Issue 6. Concerning a change in reenlistment code, the NDRB has no authority to change reenlistment codes or make recommendations to permit reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Naval Service or any other branch of the Armed Forces. Neither a less than fully honorable discharge nor an unfavorable “RE” code is, in itself, a bar to reenlistment. A request for waiver is normally done only during the processing of a formal application for enlistment through a recruiter. Relief is therefore denied.

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 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 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 89, disrespect to a commissioned officer; Article 91, disrespect to a SNCO; and Article 92, failure to obey a lawful order.
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 | 2005_Marine | MD0500388

    Original file (MD0500388.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION Violation of UCMJ, Article 89: Specification: Disrespect towards a Superior Commissioned Officer Violation of UCMJ, Article 91: Specification: Insubordinate conduct towards a noncommissioned officer.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01290

    Original file (ND02-01290.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-01290 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020911, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable and the reason for the discharge be changed to Re code upgrade. The Board found that in the Applicant’s case, the characterization of service should have been the “type warranted by service record.” A review of Applicant’s records indicated a general (under honorable conditions) discharge was warranted. You should read...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-01086

    Original file (ND00-01086.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND00-01086 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 000926, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable or general/under honorable conditions. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION I felt that I was cheated out of this great opportunity by my chain of command.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01100

    Original file (ND03-01100.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. “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 evidence assembled for review, we continue to note the contention of the appellant in his request for a discharge upgrade of his current Other Than Honorable Discharge to that of Honorable.The FSM served on...

  • USMC | DRB | 1999_Marine | MD99-01223

    Original file (MD99-01223.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD99-01223 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 990920, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION 930422: Not recommended for promotion to CPL because of lack of professionalism, self-discipline, judgement.

  • USMC | DRB | 2002_Marine | MD02-00926

    Original file (MD02-00926.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD02-00926 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020611, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Letter from Applicant dated May 14, 2002 Two pages from Applicant's service record PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004 Marine | MD04-00715

    Original file (MD04-00715.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD04-00715 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20040324. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. 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 90, disobeyed a commissioned officer; Article 107,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004 Marine | MD04-00103

    Original file (MD04-00103.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD04-00103 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20031017. I am requesting an Honorable Discharge. _______________________________________________________________________ In accordance with 32 C.F.R., section 724.166 and SECNAVINST 5420.174C, enclosure (1), paragraph 1.16, The American Legion submits to the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB or Board) the above issue, and following statement in supplement to this Applicant’s petition.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00612

    Original file (ND02-00612.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Patient (Applicant) s/p SARD for alcohol dependence. Recommendation: Continue AA meetings, weekly follow-up with medical officer, attend Stress Management weekly.000326: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense and alcohol abuse rehabilitation failure. 000326: Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1997_Navy | ND97-01365

    Original file (ND97-01365.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    There was no indication of an appeal in the record.960506: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge other than honorable by reason of misconduct due to commission of serious offenses as evidenced by violations of the UCMJ, Article 89: Disrespect toward a superior commissioned officer on 960415; Article 90: Willful disobedience of a superior commissioned officer on 960415; Article 91, disrespect toward a third class petty officer on 950929; Article 92 (2 specs): Failure to...