Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-00572
Original file (MD03-00572.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-LCpl, USMC
Docket No. MD03-00572

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20030213. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. The Applicant requested an appearance at a traveling panel closest to Bronx, NY. The Applicant did not list any representative on the DD Form 293. In the acknowledgement letter, the Applicant was advised that the NDRB does not travel, all personal appearance hearings are held in the National Capital Region. The Applicant was also advised that the Board first conducts a documentary record discharge review prior to any personal appearance hearing.

 Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20031229. 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. 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. 6210.6.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION


 Issues, as stated

 Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

“1. 1 st offense. The command originally was only going to give office hours. Find a replacement for me and to get me orders out to another duty station and finish contract.”

 2. The amount of money spent was paid back in full.

3. The command lied to me and turned around and pushed for a court-martial. When the legal office at Parris Island said my case did not warrant a court martial.

4. The Colonel at 1 st Marine Corps District at that point gave me office hours, busted to E-4 and fined $1200.00. Then submitted my package for admin separation requesting I receive a “Gen’l Under Honorable”, but instead I received “Other Than Honorable.”
5. “ I, (Applicant), am writing to your offices in reference to my request that was submitted in September of 1997 requesting my discharge to be upgraded to General under Honorable Conditions. I have not heard from the Board for Correction of Naval Records nor the offices of the Navy Discharge Review Board on my request for my rank to have been reinstated back Corporal. Through my own fault of the misplacement of my documents from the time of discharge, I was not able to follow-up on my request sent to your offices.
I would like to state in my defense for the record that I did accept responsibility for the error incurred on my part. I feel I was treated unjustly by the Commanding Officer of 1st Marine Corps District who initially was only going to give me office hours and immediately transfer me out to another unit.
In my attachments submitted, you will read where the Officer in Command, Major M_, acknowledged although the offense was committed that he felt I would have been able to move on from this and still have continued a career in the Marines. Upon being notified by the Headquarters Commanding General’s legal office from Parris Island that my case did not warrant a Court Martial, the Commanding Officer of 1st Marine Corps District gave me office hours, busted me down a rank to E-4, fined me and then proceeded with an immediate administrative separation, all this after I had made restitution, had accepted responsibility and was led to believe that I was going to be reassigned back to regular unit. GySgt T_, who was serving his tour of duty at the time, was also under the impression and was told also that I would be reassigned out to a unit.
The mere fact that, either office had not contacted me leads me to believe that my paperwork either got lost or misplaced or not given any thought. I would like for someone to please look over my applications and notify me as to the decision made. I am requesting a fair investigation to be made because this was my first and only offense in the 9 years that I served on active duty.”


Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Copy of DD Form 214
DD Form 149 (2 pp.)
23 pages from Applicant’s service record

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: USMC              880809 – 950329  HON
         Inactive: USMCR(J)                880630 - 880808  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 950330               Date of Discharge: 970801

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 02 04 03
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 18                          Years Contracted: 4

Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 51

 Highest Rank: Sgt

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluations: All FITREPs were available for review.

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: SSDR, MM (2), LoA (2), NDSM, GCM (w/1*), MUC

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6210.6.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

960813:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: UA from appointed place of duty, Ramada Hotel, Hazlett, NJ from 1130-1550, 960802.
 Awarded forfeiture of $350.00 per month for 2 months. Not appealed.
970502:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 134: Fraudulent use of U.S. Government IMPAC Credit Card from Nov 96 through Jan 97.
 Awarded forfeiture of $600.00 per month for 2 month(s), reduction to E-4. Not appealed.
970612:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under honorable conditions (general) by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense as evidenced by District level NJP held on 970502. Applicant informed that the lowest possible characterization of service she could receive was under other than honorable conditions.
970613:  Applicant advised of her rights and having elected 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.

970616:  Commanding Officer recommended discharge under honorable conditions (general) by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense. The factual basis for this recommendation was the District level NJP held on 970502.

970717:  SJA review determined the case sufficient in law and fact.

970717:  GCMCA [CG, MCRD/ERR] directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19970801 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense (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).

Issues 1-5. 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 two occasions, one being for the commission of a serious offense. The fact that the Applicant was punished for the serious offense and that she may have paid back her debt does not invalidate processing for administrative separation. Despite the positive aspects of the Applicant’s record, her conduct falls short of that required for an honorable or under honorable characterization of service. While she may feel that her command did not treat her fairly, the record clearly reflects her disregard for the requirements of military discipline and demonstrated that she was unfit for further service. The evidence of record does not demonstrate that the Applicant should not be held accountable for her actions. Further, there is no evidence that the command inequitably or improperly used its authority when it initiated separation proceedings. The separation proceedings were reviewed and found sufficient in law and fact on 19970717. Relief denied.

 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 denied.

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 January 1997 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; and Article 134, fraudulent use of a government credit card.
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 | MD03-00709

    Original file (MD03-00709.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Decision A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20040224. I worked on base until the Commanding Officer Major P. L. N_ discussed my place in the service with the Marine Corps in the future due to I requested an early out from the US Marine Corps.

  • USMC | DRB | 2001_Marine | MD01-00598

    Original file (MD01-00598.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD01-00598 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010328, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. On 5 Feb. 1999, an investigation was conducted by Capt. On I I May, 7 weeks after my request for a board and almost 4 months after my NJP, I was informed that the board was to be held on 4 July in San Diego and I was 'to be flow there a few days prior so that I would have time to discuss the...

  • USMC | DRB | 2002_Marine | MD02-00516

    Original file (MD02-00516.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I was in the Marine corps going on 6 years. If it was serious enough for me to get discharged, then she should have been also. I was discharged 6 days after being told I was receiving another than honorable discharge.

  • USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-01145

    Original file (MD03-01145.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD03-01145 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030618. 900806: An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence and by unanimous vote, found that the Applicant had committed misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense, that the misconduct warranted separation, and recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions. The Applicant’s misconduct is clearly documented.

  • USMC | DRB | 2002_Marine | MD02-00370

    Original file (MD02-00370.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Lack of training by the recruiting command and improper training from the recruiting station NCOIC led to all charges against me. 010815: An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence and by unanimous vote, found that the applicant had committed misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense, that the misconduct warranted separation, and recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions, but recommended suspension of the separation for 12...

  • USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0500548

    Original file (MD0500548.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD05-00548 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20050209. On review of the documentation provided the record the Applicant submitted for review several character and a personal statement regarding his service and the circumstances to justify the change in discharge has he has requested. As the representative, we ask that consideration be given to equitable relief, as this is a matter that involves a determination whether a discharge should be changed...

  • USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0501194

    Original file (MD0501194.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. when I am sick, like any other vetnan.” Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant’s DD Form 214 (Member 4) Ltr from Westmore and County Adult Probation and Parole, A_ P. U_, Director, dtd December 22, 2004 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of...

  • USMC | DRB | 2002_Marine | MD02-01240

    Original file (MD02-01240.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    He was discharged and I was still in. 000920: Applicant’s Base driving privileges reinstated.010604: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense as evidenced by pending civil trial for statutory rape and forcible rape of an intoxicated person, both felony charges.010605: Applicant’s civilian lawyer (M_ L_) advised command that he was representing Applicant on a criminal...

  • USMC | DRB | 2000_Marine | MD00-01026

    Original file (MD00-01026.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Age at Entry: 21 Years Contracted: 6 Education Level: 12 AFQT: 90 Highest Rank: LCpl Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks): Proficiency: 4.3 (7) Conduct: 4.2 (7) Military Decorations: None Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: GCM Days of Unauthorized Absence: None Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance):UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Misconduct-Commission of a serious offense admin discharge board waived, authority:MARCORSEPMAN...

  • USMC | DRB | 1999_Marine | MD99-00095

    Original file (MD99-00095.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    My discharge Under Other Than Honorable Conditions was based on one isolated event in 36 months of service. The applicant has provided sufficient documentation of his good character and conduct that the Board recommends partial relief by upgrading the applicant’s discharge to UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL)/Misconduct – Commission of a serious offense (all other) with admin discharge board, authority. You should read Enclosure (5) of the Directive before submitting such a complaint.