Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-01086
Original file (MD03-01086.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-Pvt, USMC
Docket No. MD03-01086

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20030609. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. The Applicant requests 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 20020415. 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. THE DISCHARGE WAS IMPROPER BECAUSE IT WAS SOULEY BASED ON ONE SINGLE INCIDENT THAT HAPPENED, ALL OTHER PERFORMANCE WAS SATISFACTORY BEFORE AND AFTER THE INCIDENT. ”

“2. UPON PUNISHMENT FOR INCIDENT, WHILE WAITING FOR DISCHARGE I SHOWED COMPLETE REGARD FOR MILITARY STANDARDS, AND WAS ASKED TO STAY ACTIVATED WITH NEW UNIT BASED ON PERFORMANCE THAT WAS LONGER THAN THE TIME OF ARRIVING INTO THE FLEET AND THE INCIDENT.”

“3. ALTHOUGH IT WAS MY DESISION TO BE SEPERATED I FEEL AS WELL AS MY FELLOW MARINES AT THE TIME, THAT I COULD OF BECAME OUTSTANDING AND SUCCEED WITH A MILITARY CAREER.”

“4. THE TIME OF SERVICE WAS ONLY 3 MONTHS TO SHORT OF A TIME TO HAVE A SEVERE DISCHARGE. POOR LEADERSHIP AND BEING UNEXPERIENCED AND IMITURE LEAD ME ASTRAY.”
Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Applicant’s DD Form 214

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: USMC              None
         Inactive: USMCR(J)                980219 - 981012  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 981013               Date of Discharge: 000608

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 01 07 27 does not exclude lost time.
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 18                          Years Contracted: 8

Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 42

 Highest Rank: PFC

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Proficiency: NMF*                          Conduct: NMF

 Military Decorations: MM

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: None

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: 282
* No Marks Found in service record book
 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 :


990526:  UA from appointed place of duty 0730.
990630:  Declared deserter.

000302:  Applicant surrendered at 1700.

000320:  Applicant advised of rights and elects not to be represented by or consult a lawyer.
000320:  SCM conviction for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (1 Spec): In that Applicant, absent himself from his unit on or about 990526 and did remain so absent until on or about 000207. Award: Red to Pvt/E-1, forf of $620.00 pay per mo for 1 mo, 30 das conf.

000523:  Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

000523:  SJA review determined the case sufficient in law and fact.

000601:  GCMCA CG 1stMarDiv directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

000608:  DD214 issued indicating Character of Service as “UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS” with a Narrative Reason for Separation of “MISCONDUCT”.

(DISCHARGE PACKAGE NOT CONTAINED IN SERVICE RECORD JACKET)

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 000608 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).

Issues 1-3. The Applicant states his discharge was based on one isolated incident. When the service of a member of U.S. Marine Corps has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service as honorable. An Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge is warranted when significant negative aspects of a member's conduct or performance of duty outweigh the positive aspects of the member's military record. The Applicant’s service was marred by a very long-term unauthorized absence of 282 days. The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflects his willful failure to meet the requirements of his contract with the U.S. Marine Corps and falls far short of that required for an upgrade of his characterization of service. Relief is not warranted.

Issue 4. Normally, to permit relief, an error or injustice must have existed during the period of enlistment in question. No such error or injustice occurred during the Applicant’s enlistment. While he may feel that inexperience, immaturity and leadership were contributing factors, it does not mitigate the Applicant’s disobedience of the orders and directives that regulate good order and discipline in the naval service. Relief denied.

The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of discharge. The Applicant can provide documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments or any other evidence related to his discharge at that time. 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 for more than 30 days.
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 | 2002_Marine | MD02-00645

    Original file (MD02-00645.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD02-00645 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020404, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. 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 has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing...

  • 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004 Marine | MD04-00040

    Original file (MD04-00040.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION 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

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004 Marine | MD04-01145

    Original file (MD04-01145.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. 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 introduced no decisional issues for consideration by the Board. As of this time, the Applicant has not provided sufficient documentation for the Board to consider.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00384

    Original file (ND03-00384.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. The Applicant can provide documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments or any other evidence related to his discharge at that time. 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.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00469

    Original file (ND03-00469.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The summary of service clearly documents that drug rehabilitation failure was the reason the Applicant was discharged. The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 21, effective 01 Sep 98 until 21 Aug 2002, Article 1910-150 (formerly 3630500), Separation by Reason of Drug Abuse Rehabilitation Failure. 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...

  • 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 | 2003_Navy | ND03-01208

    Original file (ND03-01208.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of 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): Inactive: USNR (DEP) 000320 - 000522 COG Active: USN None Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 000523 Date of Discharge:...

  • USMC | DRB | 1999_Marine | MD99-01094

    Original file (MD99-01094.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Sentence: Confined for 90 days, reduction to Pvt.981205: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under Other Than Honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the Commission of a serious offense. 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).In the applicant’s issue 1, the Board determined this issue is without merit. The Manual for...

  • USMC | DRB | 2000_Marine | MD00-00190

    Original file (MD00-00190.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 introduced no decisional issues for consideration by the Board. Outstanding post-service conduct, 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, may be considered by the NDRB. The...