Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-01019
Original file (MD03-01019.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-LCpl, USMC
Docket No. MD03-01019

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 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 20040415. 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

 No issues were submitted by the Applicant.

Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Applicant’s DD Form 214 (Member-1, State VA-6 copy)
Applicant’s Awards (5 pages)
Applicant’s Combat History page

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USMCR(J)                900302 - 901119  COG
         Active:  USMC             901120 – 941118  HON
         Active: USMC              941119 - 980724  HON

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 980725               Date of Discharge: 010803

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 03 00 09 (Doesn’t exclude confinement time.)
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 26                          Years Contracted: 4

Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 37

 Highest Rank: SSgt

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages : Enlisted performance reports were available to the Board for review thru 20010327

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: AFEM, NUC, MUC, GCM(3), NDSM, SSDR(2), NATO, NASR, LOA(2), CC, MM(7), Rifle Marksman Badge, Pistol Marksman Badges

 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 :

980725:  Reenlisted for 4 years at MCRS Ft. Sam Houston, San Antonio, TX.

 010328:  Special Court-Martial (Trial dates – 6, 27, & 28 Mar 01).
         Charge I: violation of the UCMJ, Article 92 (3 Specifications):
         Specification 1: On or about 5 Jul 00, violate a lawful general regulation to wit: Art 1165 U.S. Navy Reg, by wrongfully fraternizing with PFC R. A. B_.
         Specification 2: On or about 9 Jul 00, violate a lawful general regulation to wit: Art 1165 U.S. Navy Reg, by wrongfully fraternizing with PFC R. A. B_.
         Specification 3: On or about 24 Oct 00, violate a lawful general regulation to wit: Art 1165 U.S. Navy Reg, by wrongfully fraternizing with PFC R. A. B_.
         Charge II: violation of the UCMJ, Article 134:
         Specification: On or about 1 Aug 00 to 16 Nov 00, dishonorably fail to pay said debt.
         Additional Charge: violation of the UCMJ, Article 121 (3 Specifications):
         Specification 1: On or about 5 Jul 00, steal a Motorola cellular phone, of a value of about $29.99, the property of PFC R.A. B_.
         Specification 2: On or about 9 Jul 00, steal three digital video discs, of a value of about $60.00, the property PFC R.A. B_.
         Specification 3: On or about 21 Jul 00, wrongfully appropriate U.S. currency, of a value of about $200.00, the property PFC R. A. B_.
         Findings: to Charge I and specifications 1, 2, & 3 thereunder – guilty;
 to Charge II and specification thereunder – guilty except for the word and figures “16 November 2000”; and substituting therefore the words and figures “on or about 15 September 2000”; To the excepted word and figures, Not Guilty; To the substituted words and figures, Guilty; To the specification as substituted and excepted, Guilty.
To Additional Charge and specifications thereunder – not guilty, specifications 1 and 2 – withdrawn, specification 3 – not guilty.
          Sentence: Confinement for 30 days, reduction to E-3, and hard labor for 30 days without confinement.
         CA 010608: Sentence approved.
         SPCMO 010607: Approved as approved by the CA.

010328:  To confinement, Sentence of SPCM.
010420:  From confinement, to duty. [EXTRACTED FROM THE DD FORM 214]
[ADMIN DISCHARGE PACKAGE NOT CONTAINED IN SERVICE RECORD]

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20010803 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense (A and B). In the absence of a discharge package, the Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (C) and, after a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, found that the discharge was proper and equitable (D and E).

The Applicant introduced no decisional issues for consideration by the Board. 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 a special court-martial in which the Applicant was found guilty of serious offenses. A serious offense is any violation of the UCMJ in which a punitive discharge could be awarded. The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflects his disobedience of the orders and directives which regulate good order and discipline in the naval service. An upgrade is inappropriate. 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 final 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. 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 92, disobey a lawful order; and Article 134, fail to pay debts.
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

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00328

    Original file (ND02-00328.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    (Equity Issue) Pursuant to 10 USC 874 (b) (UCMJ, Article 74) and in accordance with SECNAVINST 5420.174C, enclosure (1), paragraph 2.24 and 9.3, this former member requests the Board's clemency relief with up-grade of his characterization of service to under honorable conditions on the basis of his post-service conduct. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 900731 with a bad conduct characterization of service due to...

  • USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0600504

    Original file (MD0600504.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. D. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part II, Para 211, Regularity of Government Affairs. You may view DoD Instruction 1332.28 and other Decisional Documents by going online at “...

  • USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-00883

    Original file (MD03-00883.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Document 2 contains the summarized testimony of the numerous witnesses who testified regarding good military character on respondent’s behalf and it also contains the impartial opinion of the board who evaluated all of the evidence from both sides and made a decision to recommend retention.” Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Character reference from GySgt, dated March 6, 2003 Thirteen pages from...

  • USMC | DRB | 2002_Marine | MD02-00466

    Original file (MD02-00466.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Letter from Applicant's Mother (5pgs)Copy of Envelope dated Feb 2001 sent to J_ W. D_Copy of Applicant's Birth Certificate 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) 950606 - 960122 COG Period of Service Under...

  • USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0501095

    Original file (MD0501095.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION Specification: Did, at barracks #313, Room #203, on board Marine Corps Air Station, Iwakuni, Japan, on or about 10 August 1995, assault Corporal S. B_, U.S. Marine Corps, who then was and was then known by the accused to be a noncommissioned officer of the United States Marine Corps, by striking him in the face with a closed fist. CA 960222: The sentence approved and ordered executed, except for bad conduct discharge, but the execution of that...

  • USMC | DRB | 2000_Marine | MD00-00333

    Original file (MD00-00333.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    To Charge III and specification thereunder, guilty Sentence: Confinement for four months, forfeiture of $438.00 pay per mouth for four months, and a bad conduct discharge. 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).The applicant's issue states: "(Equity Issue) Pursuant to 10 USC 874(b) (UCMJ) Article 74) and in accordance with SECNAVINST 5420.174c, enclosure...

  • USMC | DRB | 2001_Marine | MD01-00688

    Original file (MD01-00688.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 990630 with a bad conduct discharge which was the sentence adjudged by a properly constituted special court martial that was determined to be legal and proper, affirmed in the legal chain of review and executed (A and B). The Manual for Courts-Martial authorizes the award of a punitive discharge if adjudged as part of the sentence upon...

  • USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-00808

    Original file (MD03-00808.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION “(Equity Issue) Pursuant to 10 USC 874 (b) (UCMJ, Article 74) and in accordance with SECNAVINST 5420.174C, enclosure (1), paragraphs 2.24 and 9.3, this former member requests the Board’s clemency relief with up-grade of his characterization of service on the basis of his post-service conduct.” 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2002_Marine | MD02-00514

    Original file (MD02-00514.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD02-00514 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020305, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION 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 108, disposition of military property, Article 121, larceny, Article...

  • USMC | DRB | 2002_Marine | MD02-00671

    Original file (MD02-00671.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    While the Board found the Applicant’s post service conduct to be commendable, the Board determined that the Applicant’s record of service does not support an upgrade 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 81, conspiracy; Article 107, false official statements; Article 123, forgery.C. You should read Enclosure (5) of...