Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-00240
Original file (MD03-00240.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-PVT, USMC
Docket No. MD03-00240

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 20021121, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. The applicant requested a personal appearance hearing discharge review before a traveling panel. The applicant listed Civilian Counsel as his representative on the DD Form 293. In the acknowledgement letter, the applicant was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) does not travel, all hearings are held in the Washington, D.C. Area.

Decision

A personal appearance discharge review hearing was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20031006. After a thorough review of the testimony, records, supporting documents, facts and circumstances unique to this case, NDRB discovered no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the Applicant’s service at the time of discharge. However, the NDRB found that the Applicant’s case warranted an act of clemency. The Board’s vote was four to one that the character of the discharge shall change. The discharge shall change to: UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/ As a result of a courts-martial (SPCM) - other, authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 1105.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

 Issues submitted by Applicant’s counsel/representative:
“1. My discharge was inequitable because the conduct upon which it is based has been
mitigated by overall good service and a demonstration of remorse at the court
martial.”
 “2. My discharge was inequitable because the conduct upon which it is based was
isolated relative to its severity.”
“3. My discharge was inequitable because the conduct upon which it is based was
mitigated by subsequent good conduct and cause of steps to rehabilitate.”
 “4. My discharge should be upgraded because appellant had taken positive steps since
separation and remain law all binding. The bad conduct discharge has served its
purpose as a general and specific deterrent and is now preventing complete
rehabilitation.”
“5. My discharge was inequitable because the appellant has always had a propensity for
honesty and truthfulness. Throughout his active service, and even at his court
martial, the appellant pled guilty early on in this proceeding. Appellant’s character
trade should be distinguished from those individuals who do not demonstrate such
maturity and remorse.”
 “6. My discharge should be upgraded because I have made tremendous strives toward
contributions in educational pursuits, a good employment track record, and being a
contributing member of society. My post service conduct has been exemplary.”

Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
Declaration of Service by Mail
Letter from Attorney at Law A_ V. E_
Exhibit 1: Application for Discharge Upgrade Containing A through Z and AA through JJ (42 pages)
Exhibit 2: 2-A through 2-K: Letters of Recommendation (12 pages)
Exhibit 3: 3-A through 3-I: Documents relating to LCpl B_’s service with the United States Marine Corps (9 pages)
Exhibit 4: 4-A through 4-S: Educational courses attended and completed (18 pages).

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: USMC              None
         Inactive: USMCR(J)                900830 - 910805  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 910806               Date of Discharge: 950418

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 03 08 13
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 19                          Years Contracted: 4

Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 37

 Highest Rank: LCpl

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Proficiency: 4.1 (5)                       Conduct: 4.1 (5)

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM, HSM, NUC, OSR

Days of Unauthorized Absence: 9

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

BAD CONDUCT DISCHARGE/As a result of a courts-martial (SPCM) - other, authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 1105.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

921025:  Certified as Corporal of the Guard due to outstanding performance above peers.
930708:  During a unit urinalysis sweep Applicant voluntarily admitted to repeated use of an illegal drug (marijuana) to cope with personal problems.
930909:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 90: Willfully disobeying a superior commissioned officer, to wit: SNM on or about 2140, 930808 did willfully disobey a direct order from the BnOOD to police an area being used by SNM. Violation of UCMJ, Article 112a: Wrongfully use a controlled substance, to wit: SNM admitted to the use of marijuana to his company commander.
 Awarded forfeiture of $400.00 per month for 2 months, restriction and
extra duties for 45 days, reduction to E2. Not appealed.
930928:  Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct. [Lack of responsible behavior and UA.] Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.

940125:  Special Court-Martial.
         Charge I: violation of the UCMJ, Article 86 (7 Specifications) :
         Specification 1 : In that PFC [Applicant], U.S. Marine Corps, while on active duty, did, on or about 930919, without authority, absent himself from his organization, to wit: 1 ST Battalion, 7 th Marines (Rein), 1 st Marine Division (Rein), located at Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center, Twentynine Palms, California, and did remain so absent until at or about 930928 [9 das/S]; Specification 2 : In that PFC [Applicant], U.S. Marine Corps, while on active duty, did, on or about 0700, 930929, without authority, fail to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty, to wit: Restricted Muster, located at Building 1430, Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center, Twentynine Palms, California; Specification 3 : In that PFC [Applicant], U.S. Marine Corps, while on active duty, did, on or about 0630, 931001, without authority, fail to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty, to wit: Battalion Working Party, located at Building 1430, Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center, Twentynine Palms, California; Specification 4 : In that PFC [Applicant], U.S. Marine Corps, while on active duty, did, on or about 0900, 931002, without authority, fail to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty, to wit: Restricted Muster, located at Building 1430, Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center, Twentynine Palms, California; Specification 5 : In that PFC [Applicant], U.S. Marine Corps, while on active duty, did, on or about 0700, 931003, without authority, fail to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty, to wit: Restricted Muster, located at Building 1430, Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center, Twentynine Palms, California; Specification 6 : In that PFC [Applicant], U.S. Marine Corps, while on active duty, did, on or about 0700, 931016, without authority, fail to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty, to wit: Restricted Muster, located at Building 1430, Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center, Twentynine Palms, California; Specification 7 : In that PFC [Applicant], U.S. Marine Corps, while on active duty, did, on or about 0700, 931017, without authority, fail to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty, to wit: Restricted Muster, located at Building 1430, Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center, Twentynine Palms, California.
         Findings: to Charge I and specifications 1, 5, 6 and 7 thereunder, guilty. To specification 2, 3, and 4 under Charge I, not guilty.
         Sentence: CHL for 30 days, forfeiture of $555.00 pay per month for 1 month, reduction to E-1, and a bad conduct discharge.
         CA 940809: Sentence approved and ordered executed except for the BCD.
        
940125:  To confinement, Sentence of SPCM [Extracted from DD Form 214].

940224:  NC&PB denied clemency and restoration.

940307:  Applicant acknowledged being evaluated by Medical Officer and diagnosed as being a drug or alcohol abuser, non-dependent, and that he is not entitled to treatment in conjunction with discharge.

940307:  From confinement, to duty [Extracted from DD Form 214].

940928:  Applicant notified of status change from voluntary to involuntary appellate leave.

941118:  To appellate leave.

950111:  NMCCCA: Affirmed findings and sentence.

950328:  COMA: Petition for review denied.

950418:  SSPCMO: Article 71c, UCMJ, having been complied with, bad conduct discharge ordered executed.
970331:  NDRB documentary record review Docket Number MD97-00570 conducted. Determination: discharge proper and equitable; relief not warranted.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19950418 with a bad conduct discharge that was the adjudged by a properly constituted special court-martial. The sentence was 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 at the time issued (D and E).

Issues 1-6. With respect to a discharge adjudged by a court-martial case, the action of the NDRB is restricted to upgrades based on clemency (C, Part IV). The Applicant’s case was considered under the pertinent standards of equity to determine if any factors in this particular case merited clemency. The NDRB found the Applicant’s overall service record and evidence of post-service conduct warranted an act of clemency concerning the characterization of service. The Board voted four to one to upgrade the characterization of service to under other than honorable conditions. Partial relief is therefore granted.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A. Paragraph 1105, DISCHARGE ADJUDGED BY SENTENCE OF COURTS-MARTIAL , of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16D), effective 27 Jun 89 until 17 Aug 95.

 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.
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      
                  Washington, D.C. 20374-5023     

Similar Decisions

  • USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0600422

    Original file (MD0600422.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD06-00422 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20060118. The discharge shall remain as a bad conduct discharge by reason of court-marital. Specification 1: Having knowledge of a lawful order issued by the Commanding Officer of the Marine Corps Communication-Electronics School, to wit: School Order 5370.4A, dated 950410, an order which it was his duty to obey, did on board Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center, Twentynine Palms, California, on or about 9...

  • USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-00956

    Original file (MD03-00956.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION Sentence: Confinement for 23 days, and a bad conduct 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 of the UCMJ, Article 86, unauthorized absence; Article 91, disobey the order of a NCO; Article 92, disobey a lawful order; and Article 112a, possession of drug paraphernalia.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00724

    Original file (ND01-00724.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION (DAV's Issue)After a review of the Former Service Member (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 upgrade of his current Bad Conduct Discharge to that of Honorable. As the representative this service requests consideration be given to...

  • USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-00399

    Original file (MD03-00399.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD03-00399 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030109. “I A_ A_, was discharged from the Marine Corps, Under Other Than Honorable Conditions for smoking marijuana. Due to your continued misconduct, disregard for military authority and failure to complete Level III treatment, I have determined that you do not possess potential for further service and, accordingly, your retention is not warranted.

  • USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0501091

    Original file (MD0501091.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION Sentence: Confinement for 6 months, forfeiture of $583 per month for 6 months, reduction to E-1, Bad Conduct 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 of the UCMJ, Article 86, unauthorized absence for more than 30 days, and Article 87, missing movement through design.

  • USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0500791

    Original file (MD0500791.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    My record of promotions showed I was generally a good service member - (A92.12). Statement: In accordance with 32 CFR 724, and SECNAVINST 5420.173D, the Veterans of Foreign Wars submits to the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) the above issue and following statement in supplement to the Applicant’s petition. The Applicant contends that his record of promotions showed he was a good service member and that the incidents that lead to his discharge were out of character.

  • USMC | DRB | 2002_Marine | MD02-01270

    Original file (MD02-01270.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: None Inactive: USMCR(J) 950223 - 950321 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 950322 Date of Discharge: 990315 Length of Service (years, months, days):Active: 03 11 24 (Excludes lost time, confinement time and appellate leave.) PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 19990315 with a bad conduct discharge...

  • USMC | DRB | 2002_Marine | MD02-01178

    Original file (MD02-01178.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The finding for Misconduct is effective 27 Jun 89 until 17 Aug 95, however, the Commandant of the Marine Corps issued an official list of the new DoD SPD codes and narrative reasons for separation on 940701. The only change from MCO P1900.16C is: “administrative” vice “admin”) GKK1 Misconduct-Drug abuse (with administrative discharge board)HKK1 Misconduct-Drug abuse (administrative discharge board required but waived) Characterization of service is written “HONORABLE”, “ UNDER HONORABLE...

  • USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0600678

    Original file (MD0600678.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board’s vote was 3-2that the discharge shall change to: GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT-MARTIAL, authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. The characterization of service shall be under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct.Service Record was missing elements of the Summary of Service. Subsequent to the Applicant’s unauthorized absence, he tested positive for illegal drug use on two occasions and requested discharge in lieu of court-marital for...

  • USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0600022

    Original file (MD0600022.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Issues, as stated Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:“Request upgrade of DD Form 214 discharge, “Character of Service”” After a thorough review of the Applicant’s record and issues submitted, the Board determined that clemency is not warranted. 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 112A Wrongful use, possession, etc.