Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2004 Marine | MD04-01003
Original file (MD04-01003.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-PFC, USMC
Docket No. MD04-01003

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 honorable. The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review. The Applicant listed the Veterans of Foreign Wars as his representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20041029. 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: GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT, authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6210.3.


PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

1. “I would like to change my general discharge to an honorable one for the following reasons: I am attempting to begain a career in law inforcement. I have spoken to several police departments and the general discharge I have has been holding my applications back from the reviewing process. I would also like to serve as a reservist. I feel I can still give honorable service to the Marine Corps.”

Additional issues submitted by Applicant’s counsel/representative (VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS):

2. “Applicant indicated above requested that Veterans of Foreign Wars act as counsel concerning his application. His records were reviewed on 10-12-04 and the following comments are hereby submitted.

We support the applicant’s contentions that his discharge be upgraded.

We refer this case to the Board for their careful and compassionate consideration and request the applicant’s discharge be reviewed for an upgraded discharge.”
Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Applicant’s DD Form 214 (2)
Ltr from Promotions Branch dtd 040401
Promotion Warrant dtd 040401
Mountain View College acceptance ltr
Dallas County Community College enrollment transcript
Ltr from employer dtd 040610

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: USMC              980608 – 011010  HON
         Inactive: USMCR(J)                970616 – 980607  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 011011               Date of Discharge: 030820

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 01 10 09
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 18                          Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 33

 Highest Rank: Sgt

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Fitness reports for the period under review were available to the board

 Proficiency: 1.2 (1)                       Conduct: 1.2 (1)

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: GCM, SSDR, NDSM, CoC (2), LoA

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT, authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6210.3.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

030224:  Competency Review Board Recommendations: Reduce to Corporal and seek immediate professional counseling.

030304:  Substance Abuse Evaluation: SNM does not reveal a pattern of problematic alcohol use that is indicative of a substance abuse disorder. Medical Recommendation: Attend Alcohol Impact Class.

030304:  CO approved report of Competency Review Board and recommendation for reduction to E-4/Corporal.

030305:  Summary Court-Martial
         Charge I: VUCMJ Art 92: Wrongfully operating a privately owned vehicle.
         Charge II: VUCMJ Art 134: Impersonating a noncommissioned officer.
         Charge I: Guilty
         Charge II: Not guilty
         Sentence: Red to E-2, forf $645.00 for 1 mo, rest for 45 das.
         CA: 030503, approved and ordered executed.

030312:  Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct. [Japanese Civilian Court conviction for Driving While Intoxicated and Injury through professional negligence on 6 January 2003. An offense for which I was the subject of a competency review board for professional incompetence and was subsequently reduced to the rank of Corporal on 12 March 2003.] Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.

030328:  Applicant completed Alcohol Impact course.

030703:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for general discharge by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct as evidenced by your reduction at a Competency Review Board for driving while intoxicated and a Summary Courts-Martial for wrongfully operating a privately owned vehicle.

030724:  Commanding Officer recommended a general discharge by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct. The factual basis for this recommendation was your reduction at a Competency Review Board for driving while intoxicated and a Summary Court-Martial for wrongfully operating a privately owned vehicle.

030731:  Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct. [Pattern of Misconduct: Competency Review board for professional incompetence and a Summary Court-Martial for wrongfully operating a privately owned vehicle.] Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided.
        
030731:  Applicant advised of rights and having consulted 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.

030805:  SJA review determined the case sufficient in law and fact.

030806:  GCMCA [CG, 1MAW] directed the Applicant's general (under honorable conditions) discharge by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was awarded a general (under honorable conditions) discharge on 20030820 for misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct (A & 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. 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 a conviction at court-martial for a violation of Article 92 of the UCMJ and a competency review board, which resulted in his reduction from Sergeant to Corporal as a result of a Japanese civil conviction for driving while intoxicated. 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.

Concerning reenlistment, the NDRB has no authority to change reenlistment codes or make recommendations to permit reentry into the naval service or any other of the Armed Forces. The NDRB has no jurisdiction over reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Navy or Marine Corps. Reenlistment policy of the Marine Corps is promulgated by the Commandant, United States Marine Corps, Code MMEA, 3280 Russell Road, Quantico, VA 22134. Neither a less than fully honorable discharge nor an unfavorable "RE" code is, in itself, a bar to reenlistment. A request for a waiver is normally done only during the processing of a formal application for enlistment through a recruiter. 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.

Issue 2. The NDRB, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge, is authorized to change the character of service and/or the reason for discharge if such change is warranted. There is no evidence of impropriety or inequity in the Applicant’s discharge. The Applicant’s misconduct is clearly documented. Therefore, relief is 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. 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 P1900.16F), effective 01 Sep 2001 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, failure to obey lawful order.

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 | MD02-00597

    Original file (MD02-00597.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I am asking the review board to change my final discharge to honorable based on the fact that I already received an Honorable discharge on the 17October 1996. A previous honorable enlistment is not a sufficient mitigating factor to warrant an upgrade to an under other than honorable characterization of service. It must be noted that most Marines serve honorably and well and therefore earn honorable discharges.

  • USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0600998

    Original file (MD0600998.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    At the time of the hearing, the Applicant’s representatives submitted an “Applicants Statement of Issues” form, wherein the Applicant requested that the Discharge Characterization of Service be changed to General (Under Honorable Conditions). On 20040823 the Applicant’s counsel submitted a request for a continuance for the Applicant’s administrative separation board. In a letter dated 20040825, the separation authority notified the Applicant’s attorney’s, that the request for continuance...

  • USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0501357

    Original file (MD0501357.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant designated an active duty member as the representative on the DD Form 293. The discharge shall remain Under Other Than Honorable Conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

  • USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0501533

    Original file (MD0501533.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION Issues, as stated No issues for consideration were submitted by the Applicant.Issues submitted by Applicant’s counsel/representative (American Legion): “ Equity Issue: Pursuant to USC 874 (b) (UCMJ, Article 74) and in accordance with SECNAVINST 5420.174D, Part IV, Paragraph 403 m (7), we request, on behalf of this former member, the Board’s clemency relief with an up-grade of his characterization of service on the basis of his post-service...

  • USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0500732

    Original file (MD0500732.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Appeal denied 050528 030709: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with the least favorable characterization of service under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct [not signed].030714: SNM acknowledges processing and requests a board [Extracted from Timeline Chronology Listing]. Note: Corrective action dated 4/5/04 reflects commanding general’s intent, expressed on 3/30/04 to order separation of this Marine. The...

  • USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0600179

    Original file (MD0600179.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD06-00179 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20051101. I just feel that I deserve a chance to walk proud again.” Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Letter from Applicant, dtd April 24, 2006 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: USMCR (DEP) 19870225–19870909 COG Active: None Period of Service...

  • USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0501495

    Original file (MD0501495.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ), necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.930712: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: UA (AWOL) from 0800, 930621 to 0900, 930621 and 0300, 030701 to 0340, 930701.Award: Forfeiture of $96.00 pay per month for 1 month, restriction for 14 days. The Applicant is advised that the Veterans Administration determines eligibility for post-service benefits not the Naval Discharge Review Board. While there is no law or...

  • USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0501313

    Original file (MD0501313.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. On 16 October 2002, he was found guilty at a Special Courts Martial for violating Article 86 (Unauthorized Absence). I recommend Corporal M_(Applicant) be discharged from the Marine Corps with an Other Than Honorable characterization.

  • USMC | DRB | 1999_Marine | MD99-01208

    Original file (MD99-01208.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    "910904: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct as evidenced by the summary court-martial of 5 August 1991 and the adverse page 11 entry of 19 Mar 1991.910904: Applicant advised of his rights and having not consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge Board.910910: Commanding Officer recommended applicant be...

  • USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-00537

    Original file (MD03-00537.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Due to the fact that on those checks (which were for Pizza) I was budgeting my money according to my direct deposit at Marine Corp Federal Credit Union and when everyone’s check did not, and I mean every one did not hit direct deposit like normal and hit direct deposit 8 days later, that’s when my checks bounced. Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance...