Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-01016
Original file (MD03-01016.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-LCpl, USMCR
Docket No. MD03-01016

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20030516. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable or general/under honorable conditions. The Applicant requests 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 20040408. 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. “While I was in the Marine Corps I was diagnosed with testicular cancer and received treatment for it. Since my discharge I have been unable to receive any type of insurance, not even from the VA. I realize that when I got into trouble that I need to tell the truth and ask for forgiveness. I would appreciate an upgrade of my discharge, so I can get some insurance thru the VA. I completed all my disciplinary actions from the State of Georgia and I have fully cooperated with the State and government authorities.”
Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Applicant’s DD Form 214
 Statement in Support of Relief from Maj. M_ J. M_, Chief Trial Counsel, MFR, dtd Apr 9, 2003 (4 pages)
 Statement in Support of Relief from Maj. R_ L. P_, Admin Law Officer, MFR, dtd April 25, 2003 (2 pages)
Dept of Veterans Affairs, Medical Center, Decatur, GA, ltr of Apr 5, 2003, denying Applicant medical benefits
Copy of Applicant’s Military Medical Record

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USMCR           880816 - 881114  To Report IADT
         Active: USMCR             881115 – 890630  Released IADT
         Inactive: USMCR           890701 – 901128  To Report ACDU
         Active: USMCR             901129 – 910502  Released ACDU
         Inactive: USMCR           910503 – 920408  To Report ACDU
         Active: USMCR             920409 – 920710  Released ACDU
         Inactive: USMCR           920711 – 930910  To Report ACDU
         Active: USMCR             930911 – 970722  To reenlist, Active Reserve
Program
Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 970723               Date of Discharge: 010203

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 03 06 10
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 26                          Years Contracted: 4

Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 33

 Highest Rank: Sgt

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages : Enlisted performance reports were available to the Board for review thru 20000630

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NAM, CAR, GCM (2), AFSM, SSDR, Kuwait Liberation Medal, MUC(2), MM(2), LoA(2), SMCRM, Commanding General LoA,
NDSM, SWASM, NUC, Certificate of Appreciation, Certificate of Achievement

 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 :

970723:  Reenlisted for term of 4 years.

 000616:  Civil Conviction: State Court of Cobb County, charged with the offense of 16-8-2- Theft by Taking, a misdemeanor, on 2 Feb 2000: did unlawfully take and appropriate Hummer parts, of a value of less than $500.00, the property of United States Marines, with the intention of depriving the said owner of said property.
         Sentence: Placed on probation, 40 hours community service, pay probation supervisory fee of $35.00, probation may terminate upon complete payment and completion of any special conditions after 4 months.
000728:  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 theft by taking. Applicant also advised that if a Marine serving in pay grade E-4 or above is administratively separated under other than honorable conditions the Marine will be administratively reduced to pay grade E-3 effective upon discharge.
000808:  Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights except the right to make a statement and to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation.

000921:  Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense. The factual basis for this recommendation was due to Sgt D_ (Applicant) being charged and convicted of theft by taking on 16 June 00 by Cobb County State Court.

010129:  SJA review determined the case sufficient in law and fact.

010129:  GCMCA [MFR] directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense and directed administrative reduction in pay grade to
E-3 upon separation.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20010203 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).

Issue 1. 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 occurred during the Applicant’s enlistment. Relief denied.

Additionally, there is no law, or regulation, which provides that an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time, to enable the receipt of veterans’ benefits, or for good conduct in civilian life, subsequent to leaving the service. However, the NDRB is authorized to consider outstanding post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge, 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. Verifiable proof of any 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. Evidence of continuing educational pursuits, employment record, documentation of community service, certification of non-involvement with civil authorities and credible evidence of a substance free lifestyle, are examples of verifiable documentation that may be provided to receive consideration for relief, based on post-service conduct. The Applicant’s evidence of post-service conduct was found not to mitigate the offense for which he was discharged. 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. 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 121, larceny.
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 | MD03-01461

    Original file (MD03-01461.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    My discharge was inequitable because the conduct upon which it is based has been mitigated by overall good service and a demonstration that the alleged conduct was fabricated and untrue.2. G_ (Applicant) requests a discharge upgrade because the General Discharge is based only on alleged conduct that is mitigated by overall good service. G_ (Applicant)’s.

  • USMC | DRB | 1999_Marine | MD99-00489

    Original file (MD99-00489.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    This can not be called a repeated offense of theft, because my civil court concluded on 970528 that it was two counts of possession and not felonious larceny as stated on my discharge paperwork. Supervised probation for 18 months.970711: 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 conviction on July 2, 1997 by the State of North Carolina for two charges of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004 Marine | MD04-00293

    Original file (MD04-00293.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requested the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. The Board will determine which reason for discharge should have been assigned based upon the facts and circumstances before the Board, including the service regulations governing the reasons for discharge at that time, to determine whether relief is warranted. These issues do not supersede any issues previously submitted by the applicant.Respectfully,”...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004 Marine | MD04-00257

    Original file (MD04-00257.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD04-00257 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20031121. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions and that the RE Code be changed. 001010: 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 arrest for financial identity fraud and...

  • USMC | DRB | 2000_Marine | MD00-00143

    Original file (MD00-00143.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:None PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: None Inactive: USMCR(J) 940929 - 950711 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 950712 Date of Discharge: 970620 Length of Service (years, months, days):Active: 01 11 09 Inactive: None After a thorough review of the records, supporting...

  • USMC | DRB | 2002_Marine | MD02-00239

    Original file (MD02-00239.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD02-00239 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020114, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered: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) 970213 - 970622 COG Period of Service...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004 Marine | MD04-00327

    Original file (MD04-00327.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. Issues, as stated Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:Issue 1: “I feel that I was unfairly judged and charged with an other than honorable discharge, and has influenced a negative impact on finding a job in the civilian world.” Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the...

  • USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-00701

    Original file (MD03-00701.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. 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. This action was the basis for his administrative separation due to the commission of a serious offense.

  • USMC | DRB | 2001_Marine | MD01-00573

    Original file (MD01-00573.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    This was my first brush with trouble.After a review of the Fortner 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 the evidence assembled for review, we continue to note the contentions as set forth on the application by the appeallant of an upgrade of his current Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge to that of Honorable.The record reflects the FSM served in the United States Navy from...

  • USMC | DRB | 2002_Marine | MD02-00470

    Original file (MD02-00470.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD02-00470 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020226, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. The Applicant’s service was marred by a civil conviction for driving under the combined influence of alcohol and a drug, and inflicting bodily injury on another person. You should read Enclosure (5) of the Directive before submitting such a complaint.