Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2004 Marine | MD04-00045
Original file (MD04-00045.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-PVT, USMC
Docket No. MD04-00045

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20031001. 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 designate a representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20040628. After a thorough review of the available 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: GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/CONDITION NOT A PHYSICAL OR MENTAL DISABILITY, authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6203.2.


PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

1. “In request to my upgrade I am respectfully asking that you considered my request.

I am currently trying to persue my law enforcement goal and further my education.

I am finicially not capable of paying for my education and would like asstance from MGIB. But with out an Honorable Discharge there are no benefits for me.

Please I am an father of two and would like to be something one day for my kids.

Please help me. I have grown alot and learned alot about life and Im hoping to get a fresh start.

Respectfully,
R_ D. H_”
Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Copy of DD Form 214
Ltr frm St. Louis County & Municipal Police Academy

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: None
         Inactive: USMCR(J)                960827 - 960902  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 960903               Date of Discharge: 971202

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 01 03 00
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 19                          Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 34

 Highest Rank: LCpl

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Proficiency: 4.0 (6)              Conduct: 3.5 (6)

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: None

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/ CONDITION NOT A PHYSICAL OR MENTAL DISABILITY, authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6203.2.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

970822:  Applicant informs IDC that he wants an “Admin Sep.” IDC recommends administrative separation for pseudofolliculitis barbae.

970910:  Counseled for the following deficiencies: [Pseudofolliculitis barbae]. Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.

971006:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 91: Specification 1: Failed to obtain auto insurance for his POV. Article 92: Specification 1: Use of disrespectful language toward an NCO.
 Awarded forfeiture of $505.00 per month for 5 months, restriction and extra duties for 45 days. Forf susp for two mos. Not appealed.
971105:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 134: Specification 1: Breaking Restriction.
         Awarded forfeiture of 450.00 for 2 mos, red to E-1, restriction and epd for 45 days. Forf susp 2 mos. Not appealed.
971125:  GCMCA [CG, 2MARDIV] directed the Applicant's discharge
with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of physical condition not a disability.

 *Complete discharge package unavailable.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19971202 with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of convenience of the government due to condition not a physical or mental disability (A). In the absence of a complete discharge package, the Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (B), and after a thorough review of the available records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, found that the discharge was proper and equitable (C and D).

Issue 1. When the service of a member of the Marine Corps has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service as honorable. A General 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 two nonjudicial punishment proceedings for violations of Articles 91, 92 and 134 of the UCMJ. 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 Marine Crops and falls far short of that required for an upgrade of his characterization of service. Relief is not warranted.

The Veterans Administration determines eligibility for post-service benefits not the Navy Discharge Review Board. There is no requirement or law that grants recharacterization solely on the issue of obtaining Veterans' benefits and this issue does not serve to provide a foundation upon which the Board can grant relief. Additionally, the Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment or educational opportunities. Regulations limit the Board’s review to a determination on the propriety and equity of the discharge.

The following is provided for the edification of the Applicant. Normally, to permit relief, a procedural error or inequity must have occurred during the discharge process for the period of enlistment in question. The Board discovered no such errors after a review of Applicant’s case. 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 naval service. The NDRB is authorized, however, to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review. Examples of documentation that should be provided to the Board include proof of educational pursuits, verifiable employment records, documentation of community service and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities. As of this time, the Applicant has not provided sufficient documentation for the Board to consider. Therefore, no relief is appropriate.

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. Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16E, effective 18 Aug 95), paragraph 6203, CONVENIENCE OF THE GOVERNMENT
B. 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.

C. 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.

D. 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 | MD03-00945

    Original file (MD03-00945.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 20040401. Relief denied.The Veterans Administration determines eligibility for post-service benefits, not the NDRB.

  • USMC | DRB | 2002_Marine | MD02-00736

    Original file (MD02-00736.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD02-00736 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020424, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. Possible medical board. 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 (C and D).Issue 1: The Applicant, through counsel, contends that racial prejudice by his command

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004 Marine | MD04-00717

    Original file (MD04-00717.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD04-00717 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20040325. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. _______________________________________________________________________ In accordance with 32 C.F.R., section 724.166 and SECNAVINST 5420.174C, enclosure (1), paragraph 1.16, The American Legion submits to the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB or Board) the above issue and following...

  • USMC | DRB | 2001_Marine | MD01-00996

    Original file (MD01-00996.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD01-00996 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010730, 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 Women of Concern Award of Excellence dtd 3 Jun 2001Information concerning the Women of Concern in the State of Tennessee (2 pages) PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004 Marine | MD04-00201

    Original file (MD04-00201.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 (C and D).Issue 1: By regulation, members who are processed for discharged within the first 180 days of enlistment are given characterization of service as “uncharacterized” unless there were unusual circumstances regarding performance or conduct, which would merit an “honorable” characterization. When the command suspects a...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004 Marine | MD04-00103

    Original file (MD04-00103.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD04-00103 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20031017. I am requesting an Honorable Discharge. _______________________________________________________________________ In accordance with 32 C.F.R., section 724.166 and SECNAVINST 5420.174C, enclosure (1), paragraph 1.16, The American Legion submits to the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB or Board) the above issue, and following statement in supplement to this Applicant’s petition.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004 Marine | MD04-01001

    Original file (MD04-01001.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :960108: Enlistment waiver was required for marijuana use while in DEP. 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 Marine Corps and falls far short of that required for an upgrade of his...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01431

    Original file (ND03-01431.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. I currently have an Associates degree and I would like to use the remaining 3 years and 2 months to finish up my BIT in computers, plus I would respectfully request my discharge be upgraded to discharge under honorable conditions (General). No further information found in service record.

  • USMC | DRB | 2001_Marine | MD01-00923

    Original file (MD01-00923.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD01-00923 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010709, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. Decision A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 020118. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

  • USMC | DRB | 2002_Marine | MD02-00784

    Original file (MD02-00784.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD02-00784 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020514, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. Assessment: Longstanding eustachian tube dysfunction with recurrent otitis media, worse left ear, disqualifying for military service - existed prior to enlistment. 010425: GCMCA [CG, MCB, Camp Pendleton] directed the Applicant's discharge under honorable conditions (general) for the convenience of the Government due...