Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2004 Marine | MD04-01000
Original file (MD04-01000.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-LCpl, USMC
Docket No. MD04-01000

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20040604. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. The Applicant requests a documentary record 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 20041122. 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. “ My discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident in the 24 months I spent in service. Please consider my life has changed since my discharge. It has been very difficult finding employment, however I did turn my life around and make the best of it. What I’ am asking is that if you can please change my discharge to a general discharge so that I could maintain better employment please consider. I realy don’t know what else to say except that it would be A tremendous and appreciated thing if you could please consider that.

Thank you J_ C_ B_ ”
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: None
         Inactive: USMCR(J)                940523 - 950220  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 950221               Date of Discharge: 970729

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 02 05 09
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 25                          Years Contracted: 4

Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 35

 Highest Rank: LCpl                         MOS: 3381

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Proficiency: 4.5 (6)                       Conduct: 4.3 (6)

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM, RSB

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None (368 days IHCA)

 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 :

941121:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92 (2 Specs):
Spec 1: At FSScol, MCSSS, MCB CamLej, 2300, 941108 violated BO 1700.6H by consuming alcoholic beverages in room 328, Bks M-435.
Spec 2: At FSScol, MCSSS, MCB, CamLej, NC, 2300, 941108, having knowledge of Camp Johnson AreaO P11101.5A, violated the same by wrongfully and unlawfully enetering room #328, Bks M-435 , an unauthorized area for male personnel.
Violation of UCMJ, Article 134: AT Bks M-435, FSScol, MCSSS, MCB, CamLej, NC, 2330, 941108, was drunk and disorderly..
         Award: forf of $300 pay per mo for 2 mos (Total forf $600), 15 das restr to the limits of FSScol, MCSSS, MCB CamLej, w/o susp from du and 15 das extra du, to rum concurrently. Forf of $300 pay per mo for 1 mo, susp for 3 mos, at which time, unless sooner vacated, will be remitted w/o further act (Total forf susp $300). No indication of appeal in the record.

941121:  Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct. [Your violation of BO 1700.6H by consuming alcoholic beverages in Room 328, Bks M-435, your violation of Camp Johnson AreaO P11101.5A, by entering room #328, Bks M-435, an unauthorized area for male personnel, and your drunk and disorderly conduct on 941108.] Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.

960423:  Applicant to IHCA, Yuma County Adult Detention Facility, Yuma, AZ.

970114:  Applicant from IHCA returned to duty.

970418:  Applicant to IHCA.

970612:  Report of Preliminary Inquiry in the Case of Lance Corporal J_C_B_ [Applicant]. Applicant was apprehended by civil authorities for a sexual assault that occurred on 960422. LCpl B_ was IHCA from 960423 – 970114 awaiting trial. On 97 0114 LCpl B_ was released and returned to his unit pending trial. On 970305 LCpl B_ appeared in the Superior Court of Arizona, in the county of Yuma, and as a result of a previous plea bargain, the court accepts a no contest plea for aggravated assault. On 970418 LCpl B_ appeared in the Superior Court of Arizona, County of Yuma, for sentencing. LCpl B_ was sentenced to a term of imprisonment with the Arizona Department of Corrections for a period of 2.5 years, minus 268 days previously served. In addition, he will serve four months under community supervision consecutive to the prison term. He was also ordered to pay restitution to the victim in the amount of $550.00, and $375.00 for attorney assessment fees. Recommendation: the LCpl B_ should be expeditiously processed for an admin separation due to misconduct, specifically, commission of a serious offense.

970613:  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 “your plea of No Contest to the charge of Aggravated Assault given and accepted by the Superior Court of Yuma County, State of Arizona on 12 Sep 1996.”
970627:  Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult 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.

970703:  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 LCpl B_ [Applicant] commitment of a serious offense, specifically aggravated assault, and his subsequent sentencing to the Arizona Department of Corrections, he is no longer qualified for further service in the Marine Corps. I feel that retention of LCpl B_ would be prejudicial to the good order and discipline of the Armed Services and would not be in the best interest of the Marine Corps.”

970725:  SJA review determined the case sufficient in law and fact.

970728:  GCMCA, CG, 3d Marine Aircraft Wing, 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 19970729 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense (A). The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (B). 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 states his discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident in 24 months. Despite a servicemember’s prior record of service, certain serious offenses, even though isolated, warrant separation from the naval service in order to maintain proper order and discipline. The Applicant’s service record is marred by a civil conviction for aggravated assault and he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment with the Arizona Department of Corrections for a period of 2.5 years. 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.

The following is provided for the edification of the Applicant. Normally, to permit relief, a procedural impropriety or inequity must have occurred during the discharge process for the period of enlistment in question. The Board discovered no impropriety 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 any documentation for the Board to consider. Relief denied.

There is no requirement or law that grants recharacterization solely on the issue of obtaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities and this issue does not serve to provide a foundation upon which the Board can grant relief. Regulations limit the Board’s review to a determination on the propriety and equity of the discharge.




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 31 August 2001).

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 | 2005_Marine | MD0500271

    Original file (MD0500271.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD05-00271 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20041129. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant’s DD Form 214 Letter from Applicant (3 pgs), undtd Statement in Support of Claim from Applicant (2 pgs), undtd Letter from Applicant dtd February 25, 2005 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive:...

  • USMC | DRB | 1999_Marine | MD99-01190

    Original file (MD99-01190.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD99-01190 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 990903, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable conditions. Decision A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 000525. 890920: Applicant advised of her rights and having not consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge Board.890920: Commanding officer recommended discharge...

  • USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0501226

    Original file (MD0501226.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION Issues, as stated Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application and/or from an attached document/letter to the Board:“Application for correction of military record under the provisions of title 10, U. S. code, section 1552 (5, 6) Application for the review of discharge from the Armed Forces of the Unites States (6):I, R_ E_ K_(Applicant), would like to request that my discharge determination of Other than Honorable be changed to a Medical...

  • USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-00886

    Original file (MD03-00886.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. The Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) also advised that the Board first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. I am submitting from DD 293 to the review board and I am asking that my “Other than Honorable Conditions” discharge be upgraded to Honorable.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004 Marine | MD04-00750

    Original file (MD04-00750.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    971209: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse as evidenced by wrongful use of marijuana.971209: 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 obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation.971209: Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than...

  • USMC | DRB | 2002_Marine | MD02-00572

    Original file (MD02-00572.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The NDRB also advised that the board first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. On July 8, 1997, the Commanding Officer of Financial Management School at Marine Corps Service Support Schools on Camp Lejeune, NC, initiated a request to discharge me from the United States Marine Corps, at which time I had six months and one day of active service in the military. The Board found no impropriety or inequity in the Applicant’s low proficiency and conduct markings.

  • 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 | MD01-00670

    Original file (MD01-00670.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION Sentence: Confinement for 60 days, Forfeiture of $639.00 pay per month for 2 months, and a bad conduct discharge. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 000823 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).

  • USMC | DRB | 2007_Marine | MD0700064

    Original file (MD0700064.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Service Record Entries, Medical Record Entries, Elements of Discharge and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found the Applicant’s discharge proper and equitable. Not appealed.20000222: SummaryCourt-Martial: Charge I: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 86 (2 specifications). (20000303) SJA review (date): (20000412)Separation Authority (date): COMMANDING GENERAL, 2D MARINE DIVISION, II...

  • USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0600347

    Original file (MD0600347.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION Issues, as stated Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:“Please review and consider the attached DD Form 149, formal request and supporting documentation.It is my desire to simply be recognized as a “ Honorably Discharged United States Marine”. The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the...