Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2004 Marine | MD04-01024
Original file (MD04-01024.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-PVT, USMCR
Docket No. MD04-01024

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20040608. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable or entry level separation and that the narrative reason for separation be changed to Expiration of Term of Service, with a letter from the NDRB recommending the Applicant for government service. The Applicant requests a personal appearance hearing discharge review before the Board in the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan area. The Applicant listed Civilian Counsel as the representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A personal appearance hearing discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20041021. 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 and narrative reason of the discharge shall not change. The discharge shall remain: UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Failure to Participate (Reserve not on active duty) (administrative discharge board required but waived), authority: MARCORSEPMAN 6213.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Issues submitted by Applicant’s counsel/representative ( CIVILIAN COUNSEL):

 1. “Pursuant to 10 U.S.C § 1553 and Department of Defense Directive 1332.28, codified at 32 C.F.R. § 70, J_ W_ F_ (“Mr. F_” or “Applicant”) hereby submits this application to upgrade his discharge characterization from Other Than Honorable (OTH) to Honorable or Entry Level Separation, and to change the narrative reason for his discharge to Expiration of Term of Service. This request is made for reasons of propriety and equity.

Today, despite substantial hardships, Mr. F_ (Applicant) is an attorney with M_, C_, P_ and S_ in Detroit, Michigan. His law firm is one of the largest in the country, and he is considered one of their top young trial attorneys. In addition, he has performed community service by advocating on behalf of foster-care children as a Court-Appointed Special Advocate and by performing pro bono legal work for those in need of legal services but who can’t afford them. The only blemish on his record is his brief period in the Marine Reserves. In short, Mr. F_ (Applicant) is a patriot, an upstanding member of the community, and wholly deserving of a change in the character of his military service.

It is not easy to piece together Mr. F_ (Applicant)’s military history. His time in the United States Marine Corps was brief, and his actual time in uniform was even briefer. The records of his performance are sporadic, and it is not totally clear what happened in this case. What is clear is that Mr. F_ (Applicant) enlisted in the Marine Reserves at a very young age (against his family's wishes), drilled for a few months, and then was unable to attend any further drills.

It is unclear from the available records whether Mr. F_ (Applicant) received the inquiries his Command sent him regarding his status. As a result, Mr. F_ (Applicant) was discharged with an Other Than Honorable Discharge Certificate, as he apparently failed to appear before his administrative separation board (or the Board was not held due to the command’s inability to reach him.) To clarify the records, Mr. F_ (Applicant) provides the following information, which he will expound upon during his personal appearance. Mr. F_ (Applicant) was born and raised in Las Vegas, Nevada. While living in Las Vegas, he enlisted the Marine Reserves in December 1987. He completed an Initial Active Duty Training tour on August 19, 1988 and was released from his initial period of active duty for training with an Honorable Discharge. He was then assigned to a reserve unit in Reno, Nevada, and began attending the University of Nevada Reno. Of his unit’s four drills in the fall of 1988, he attended two, and two were cancelled.

In December 1988, Mr. F_ (Applicant) left college and returned to Las Vegas for personal reasons. By his own admission, he did not attend any more of his unit’s drills, again as a result of the personal problems he was experiencing. He received some of the letters sent him regarding his discharge but, as a young kid with significant personal problems, he did not realize their importance. He even spoke to his commanding officer, but again did not fully grasp the ramifications of his actions. In June 1989, he received a notice that he was administratively discharged with an 0TH discharge certificate. As with many young reservists, Mr. F_ (Applicant) simply assumed that if he did not attend drills, he would be dropped from the rolls, and that would be the end of it.

As this Board is aware, an other than honorable characterization of service is the harshest available in administrative discharge proceedings. In this case, an 0TH discharge is an unusually harsh punishment for failing to attend drills. This is especially so where, as here, Mr. F_ (Applicant)’s service record was otherwise unblemished. Such cases are usually handled with an Entry Level Separation or, at worst, a General (Under Honorable Conditions) Discharge. In this case, an 0TH discharge is both inequitable and contrary to law.

The failure to properly notify Mr. F_ (Applicant) of his pending administrative discharge board deprived him of due process and an opportunity to respond to the allegations against him. It appears that the notice of the board was sent to a unit address, when he was obviously not attending drills. It does not appear that he was given the right to counsel, or afforded any opportunity to consult with counsel. There is simply no evidence in the available military records that the usual due process rights afforded Marines were provided in this case. Instead, it seems the unit made a half-hearted attempt to reach Mr. F_ (Applicant) and, when they couldn’t. simply discharged him with an OTH discharge certificate. While some of this is obviously due to Mr. F_ (Applicant)’s failure to reply to his unit’s requests, it also appears that the unit did not follow proper procedures.

In order to better understand the background that lead up to these decisions, it is important for the Board to know a little bit more about Mr. F_ (Applicant). His family life was, to put it mildly, abysmal. As a child, he bounced back and forth between an abusive, drug-addicted, mother, an abusive, alcoholic, father, an eccentric grandfather and protective custody. His mother worked evenings at various Las Vegas casinos. Mr. F_ (Applicant) spent the evenings in the hands of various baby-sitters, one who physically abused him, and plied him with drugs and alcohol. All of this led to Mr. F_ (Applicant) being taken into protective custody. At the age of 13, Mr. F_ (Applicant) moved to Northern California and lived with relatives in a one-bedroom trailer. They had no electricity or running water.

At the age of sixteen, Mr. F_ (Applicant) returned to Las Vegas and began working for a local McDonald’s, while living at his mother’s house. Again, he was pretty much on his own. Shortly thereafter, at the age of seventeen, he enlisted in the Marine Reserves, in order to obtain money to pay for college.

During recruit training, Mr. F_ (Applicant) was injured when one of his drill instructors threw a wooden life preserver at him, striking him in the face. This was followed by a series of verbal abuses at the hands of this same drill instructor. Of course, Mr. F_ (Applicant) reported none of this, due to a well-founded fear of recriminations. Marine recruits were succinctly warned not to report any allegations of misconduct involving their DI’s, as it would not be good for their career progression. Rather than teach Mr. F_ (Applicant) to respect his superiors, this incident made Mr. F_ (Applicant) fearful of them.

After recruit training, Mr. F_ (Applicant) began dating a young woman engaged to one of his best friends. This infuriated a third friend, who was also a Marine Reservist. This third friend physically threatened Mr. F_ (Applicant). This third friend lived in Las Vegas and was a member of the only reserve unit available for Mr. F_ (Applicant) to transfer into. Faced with his friend’s anger, disillusionment with the Marine Corps, and an abysmal family life, Mr. F_ (Applicant) simply gave up on the Marine Corps, and decided to no longer attend drills. While the decision was wrong, it is hard to understand the myriad of external factors that went into that decision, and to put ourselves in his shoes.

The imposition of an OTH discharge, as previously noted, is unduly harsh under these circumstances. Mr. F_ (Applicant) was a young Marine, who made a mistake in not following proper protocol when he was no longer able to attend drills. He was confused, fearful of his superiors, and lacked meaningful adult guidance. While his actions were wrong, they were not so heinous as to brand him with a stigma that will haunt him for the rest of his life. This is especially so in light of his many accomplishments.

Since leaving the Marine Corps, Mr. F_ (Applicant)’s life has been a miraculous success. In spite of the limitations placed on him, he has excelled in life. He graduated with honors from college, and was accepted into a number of top-ranked law schools. He eventually attended and graduated from the University of Michigan Law School one of the nation’s finest. He has passed the Michigan bar exam, had his character and fitness favorably adjudicated by the State Bar of Michigan, and is now an Associate with a prestigious Detroit law firm. Mr. F_ (Applicant) joined the Catholic Church and married in 1996. He has supported his wife while she attends graduate school. In 2000, when Mr. F_ (Applicant) learned that his Alzheimer’s stricken father was homeless and wandering the streets of Las Vegas, Mr. F_ (Applicant) arranged for his father’s placement in a Michigan nursing home. Mr. F_ (Applicant) continues to oversee his father’s care. Notwithstanding Mr. Fountain’s success as an attorney, he seeks a change in his character of service, in part, because he desires to return to government service. See note I, supra.

 Mr. F_ (Applicant) recognizes the character, determination, and hard work of those Marines who complete their service obligations in their entirety and are discharged honorably. Granting Mr. F_ (Applicant)’s request would not be unfair or disrespectful to those members. While Mr. F_ (Applicant) concedes that his conduct at the time of separation may have warranted a less than honorable characterization, Mr. F_ (Applicant) submits that he is no longer deserving of the enormous stigma associated with an other than honorable discharge.

Moreover, Mr. F_ (Applicant) urges the Board members to consider his potential for future government service, whether in a military capacity or otherwise. Although he may have been unfit for military service at the time of separation, he has overcome the personal and financial hardships that affected his prior service As a matter of sound policy, Mr. F_ (Applicant) urges the board members to consider the fact that he is fully capable of rendering future service to the United States government. Mr. F_ (Applicant) maintains that it is in the best interests of the United States to provide a vehicle for persons such as him to re-enter government service.

I am attaching a number of documents for your review, which I believe will help on understand what Mr. F_ (Applicant) has accomplished in spite of the awful odds life placed against him. He has accomplished all he has set out to do. Outside of the blemish of his Marine discharge, he has led an exemplary life. He respectfully requests that you upgrade his discharge, and help him blot out this negative period of his life.

Respectfully Submitted,

W_ E_ C_ ( Applicant 's attorney), Esquire
Attorney at Law”


Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Letter from Applicant dated June 3, 2004
 Brief in support of application from Applicant 's attorney
E-mail from Supervisor B_ B_, dated July 29, 2003
E-mail from Supervisor C_ L_ P_ Jr, dated July 29, 2003
“Success of the Week” e-mail from M_ C_ CEO T_ L_ noting Applicant’s role in the firm’s victory on behalf of Ford Motor Credit Co, June 30, 2003
E-mail from Supervisor M_ B_, dated August 4, 2003
E-mail to C_ L_P_ from F_ A_ A_, dated May 28, 2002
E-mail to bonus recipients, dated October 22, 2001
U.S. News 2004 Law School Rankings
Offer of Admission from the University of Michigan Law School, dated April 16, 1998
Offer of Admission from Boston University Law School, dated March 13, 1998
Offer of Admission from the University of California Hastings School of Law, dated April 13, 1998
Offer of Admission from the University of Minnesota Law School, dated April 10, 1998
Offer of Admission from Washington University Law School, dated March 19, 1998
Offer of Admission from Santa Clara University Law School, dated March 3, 1998
Offer of Admission from the Illinois Institute of Technology Law School, dated March 13, 1998
Wait List Letter from Harvard University School of Law, dated May 4, 1998
Reserve Status Letter from Columbia University Law School, dated April 28, 1998
Reserve Status Letter from Columbia University Law School, dated July 8, 1998
Preferred Waiting List Letter form Georgetown University Law School, dated April 3, 1998
Reserve Status Letter from Cornell University Law School, dated March 11, 1998
Wait List Letter from Boston College School of Law, dated March 25, 1998
Wait List Letter from Loyola Law School, dated March 25, 1998
Letter from the Nevada Repository of Criminal History Information showing no arrest record, dated February 26, 2001
Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles Printout showing 1 traffic citation and 2 suspensions (failure to maintain liability insurance on motor vehicle), dated March 7, 2001
Michigan Driver’s License Report showing 1 traffic accident where Applicant was rear-ended by another vehicle, dated February 28, 2001
E-mail from D_ R_ , dated August 13, 2003
Clark County School District Record indicating exclusion from Valley High School on 2/23/88
Letter from S_ P_, dated December 13, 1996
Character Reference from M_ S_ V_ (Persian Gulf Veteran and recipient of the Army Commendation Medal), dated February 25, 2001
Character Reference Letter from former supervisor G_ B_, dated February 26, 2001
Character Reference Letter from D_ D_, dated February 28, 2001
Character Reference Letter from V_ D_ Ph.D., dated March 5, 2001
Character Reference Letter from I_ D_ (police detective), dated March 1, 2001
Certificate of First Holy Communion, dated February 18, 1997
Catholic Marriage Certificate, dated July 1, 1996
Catholic Baptism Certificate, dated June 15, 1996
Certificate of Appreciation - The People’s Law School, dated May 16, 1996
Certificate of Training - CASA, dated May 22, 1997
Letter of Appreciation from J_ A_ A_, dated October 1, 1998
E-mail from Law Professor A_ S_, dated November 5, 1999
Letter of Appreciation from 34 th District Court, dated December 17, 2001
Letter from the State Bar of Michigan Committee on Character & Fitness, dated July 25, 2001
Letter from the National Conference of Bar Examiners noting scaled score of 99 on the Multistate Professional Responsibility Exam
Letter from the State Bar of Michigan notifying that Applicant passed the February 2002 Michigan Bar Exam, dated May 10, 2002
Letter from the State Bar of Michigan to all Michigan courts, dated May 10, 2002
Certificate of Admission to the Michigan Bar, dated May 22, 2002
Certificate of Admission to Practice before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, dated October 1, 2002
Letter from supervisor S_ B_ characterizing me as an “exemplary employee”, dated May 5, 1997
Character Reference Letter from K_ P_ to Cornell University Law School, dated March 27, 1998
Letter from K_ P_ offering me a position as a Summer Associate, dated November 15, 1999
Certificate of Admission to the Phi Kappa Phi National Honor Society
1996 Certificate of Admission to the Golden Key National Honor Society, dated April 17, 1997
UNLV Transcript showing B.A. in Political Science cum laude awarded on 5/1 6/98
University of Michigan Law School Transcript showing J.D. awarded on May 2, 2001
UNLV Dean’s List Award Letter, dated January 10, 1996
UNLV Dean’s List Award Letter, dated January 12, 1996
UNLV Dean’s List Award Letter, dated June 5, 1996
UNLV Dean’s List Award Letter, dated June 25, 1996
UNLV Dean’s List Award Letter, dated January 13, 1997
UNLV Dean’s List Award Letter, dated February 5, 1997
UNLV Dean’s List Award Letter, dated June 20, 1997
UNLV Dean’s List Award Letter dated January 14, 1998
UNLV Dean’s List Award Letter, dated January 8, 1998
UNLV Dean’s List Award Letter, dated June 17, 1998
Nevada Access Scholarship Notification, dated April 9, 1997
Political Science Department Scholarship Award letter, dated July 3, 1997
Letter from Boston University awarding me a $45,000 Scholarship, dated April 16, 1998
Letter from the University of Minnesota Law School awarding a ‘Non-Resident High Ability Tuition Waiver”, dated June 19, 1998
Certificate of Membership in the University of Michigan Law School’s Lawyer’s Club
Swing Manager Certification from McDonald’s Corporation, dated February 17, 1989
Internal memorandum of McDonald’s Corporation naming Applicant as the Winner of the August 20, 1989 Las Vegas Market Swing Manager Competition, dated September 6, 1989
Diploma from McDonald’s Corporation indicating successful completion of McDonald’s Basic Operations Course in restaurant management, dated May 4, 1990
Diploma from McDonald’s Corporation indicating successful completion of McDonald’s Intermediate Operations Course in restaurant management, dated August 10, 1990
Letter from McDonald’s Corporation congratulating Applicant on successfully completing McDonald’s post-A.E. C. (Applied Equipment Course) action plans, dated November 7, 1991
Diploma from McDonald’s Corporation indicating successful completion of McDonald’s Advanced Operations Course (i.e. Hamburger University), Applicant finished second out of 128 students from around the world and was named to the Dean’s List, dated April 1992
Letter from former supervisor R_ R_, dated February 9, 1992
Letter from the Clark County School District, dated March 13, 1995
 Letter from the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, dated May 24, 1995
 Copy of Union Guy book jacket
Letter from Clayton Fountain promising Applicant financing for college, dated June 18, 1985
Letter form Clayton Fountain demonstrating his pacifist viewpoint, dated July 6, 1987
Letter from Clayton Fountain calling militarism “the grossest abnormality that plagues our planet now” and revoking his prior promise of college funding stating “The Pentagon grabs a cut of the income taxes we pay. You may regard that fiscal slice as our donation hereafter”, dated May 10, 1988
Applicant's Law School Personal Statement
Applicant's résumé
 Student Pilot Certificate
Letter of recommendation from D_ F_, Associate Professor, UNLV
District Court, ClarkCounty, NV order granting amended petition to seal records and files, dated August 17, 1995
Letter from Applicant’s wife, dated October 20, 2004
Letter of recommendation from J_ I_ D_
Employment reference letter from F_ A. A_
Letter of recommendation from M_ S. V_
Letter of recommendation from D_ E. B_
        

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 871211               Date of Discharge: 890608

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 00 02 13
         Inactive: 01 03 16

 Age at Entry: 17                          Years Contracted: 8

Education Level: 11                        AFQT: 90

 Highest Rank: PFC                          MOS: 0300

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Proficiency: 3.5 (3)              Conduct: 3.5 (3)

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: RSB

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Failure to participate (Res not on active duty) admin discharge board required but waived; authority: MARCORSEPMAN 6213.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

880608:  Enlistment contract into the USMCR documents acknowledgement of the requirement to participate in 48 scheduled drills and not less than 14 days of annual training per year for 6 years upon completion of initial active duty training.

890108:  Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct. [Unsatisfactory drill attendance.] Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued. Applicant was not available for signature.

890305:  Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct. [Unsatisfactory drill attendance.] Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued. Applicant was not available for signature.
890406:  Affidavit of Service by mail for notification of separation proceedings. Applicant’s failure to acknowledge the contents constituted waiver of all rights.

890409:  Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct. [Unsatisfactory drill attendance.] Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued. Applicant was not available for signature.

890501:  Officer in Charge recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to unsatisfactory participation in the Ready Reserve. The factual basis for this recommendation was 15 unexcused absences. Commanding officer’s comments: Pvt F_ has experienced a history of unsatisfactory drill performance. He has not attended a drill at this unit since November 1988. Pvt F_ has not responded to unit efforts to correct his unsatisfactory performance nor has he made himself available to sign appropriate documents pertaining to counseling and separation action. It has been determined by phoncon on 890304, between Pvt F_ and Capt B_ (Det OIC) that Pvt F_ has no intention of attending drill in Reno, Las Vegas, or any place else. Contact, personally, by Pvt F_’s Squad Leader, Cpl L_, on 890322 and 890402 also indicate Pvt F_’s intention not to honor his enlistment contract. Pvt F_’s potential for continued service/promotion is considered poor. This command has not awarded Pvt F_ any type of security clearance nor has he had access to any classified material. Pvt F_ has not been available, due to his reluctance to cooperate in any fashion, to provide appropriate signatures or to be provided a copy of his discharge package.

890519:  DSJA review determined the case sufficient in law and fact.

890519:  GCMCA [Commanding General, 4 th MARDIV (Rein)] directed the Applicant's discharge under conditions other than honorable by reason of misconduct due to unsatisfactory participation in the Ready Reserve.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19890608 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to unsatisfactory participation in the Ready Reserve (A, B, and C). The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (D). 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 (E and F).

 Issue 1. 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. The Applicant’s service was marred by his failure to attend regularly scheduled drill periods with his reserve unit. No other narrative reason more clearly describes the circumstances surrounding the Applicant’s processing for administrative separation.
 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, and falls short of that required for an honorable or under honorable (general) characterization of service. The Board found that the Applicant was properly and equitably processed for administrative separation under other than honorable conditions and found no indication in the record that the Applicant was denied any rights concerning his administrative separation, or that his reserve unit failed to follow proper procedures. It is the Applicant’s responsibility to keep his chain of command informed of his current address. The Applicant’s failure to respond to his discharge notification constitutes the waiver of the rights afforded. The evidence of record does not demonstrate that the Applicant was not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions. Relief denied.

 The Applicant’s discharge characterization accurately reflects his service to his country. Normally, to permit relief, an inequity or impropriety must have existed during the period of enlistment in question. No such inequity or impropriety occurred during the Applicant’s enlistment. Additionally, there is no law, or regulation, which provides that an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time, to enhance employment opportunities, or for good conduct in civilian life, subsequent to leaving the service. However, the NDRB is authorized to consider outstanding post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge, 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. The Applicant’s evidence of post-service conduct was found not to mitigate his misconduct sufficient to warrant an upgrade to his discharge. Relief not warranted.

The Board does not issue letters of fitness or recommendation. The Board’s regulations limit its review to a determination on the propriety and equity of the discharge.

The Applicant is reminded that he may also petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) at 2 Navy Annex, Washington, D.C. 20370-5100 to review his service record for a change to his characterization of service.


 Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A. Paragraph 6213 of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16C, effective 15 Apr 84 until 26 Jun 89) states that a Marine may be separated for unsatisfactory participation in the Ready Reserve under criteria established in MCO P1001R.1E.

B. Marine Corps Reserve Administrative Management Manual, MCO P1001R.1E.

C. Table 6-1, Guide for Characterization of Service, of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16C, effective 840415 until 890626).

D. 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.

E. 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.

F. 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 | 2006_Marine | MD0600672

    Original file (MD0600672.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Private First Class B_ (Applicant) has stated to HM2 H_, “That I have no desire to return to the unit and remain in the Marine Corps.” HM2 P_ had told Private First Class B_ (Applicant) the way to correct his deficiencies through his chain of command and that if he did not then a list of consequences was given to him under the references (a) and (b). Private First Class B_ (Applicant) did not show up for the May drill and was given Unexcused for those drills. It is requested that Private...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075825C070403

    Original file (2002075825C070403.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    His recruiter failed to inform him that if his degree was evaluated and it was determined to be worth 136 credit hours under the United States Educational System, he could enlist in pay grade E-3. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: Based on the foregoing, the Board concluded that the applicant failed to inform his recruiter, at the time of enlistment in the Army, that he had 136 college credit hours from the University of Guadalajara.

  • USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0600256

    Original file (MD0600256.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Every time I was notified of drill, I called my Unit and informed the Navy Doc of my medical status i.e. that my back was still hurt and I had not had surgery because the doctors would not perform it. ]980807: Applicant absent from 1 drill,unexcused.980807: Commanding Officer/Inspector Instructor, Headquarters and Service Company, 1 st Battalion, 25 th Marines, 4 th Marine Division signs Notification of Separation Proceedings advising Applicant of intended recommendation for discharge by...

  • USMC | DRB | 2002_Marine | MD02-00705

    Original file (MD02-00705.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD02-00705 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020422, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. The Applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. F_, Detective, LA Police Dept, Homicide Section Character Reference letter, undated, from employer, B_ P. B_ Character Reference letter dtd Feb 27, 2002, from employer, J_ E_, Operation manager Letter of full-time enrollment, Platt College, dtd Apr 4,...

  • USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0600847

    Original file (MD0600847.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Not appealed.041229: Counseling: Advised of deficiencies in performance and conduct (Non-judicial punishment on 041229 for violation of the UCMJ, specifically, Article 92, 134 (2x)), necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.050118: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 89: On or about 041229 behave...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-01093

    Original file (ND04-01093.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. Applicant did not respond.920422: Letter of intent to administratively separate under other than honorable conditions for the failure to participate in reserve training was sent via certified mail, return receipt requested. PART IV - INFORMATION FOR THE APPLICANT If you believe that the decision in your case is unclear, not responsive to the issues you...

  • USMC | DRB | 2002_Marine | MD02-00394

    Original file (MD02-00394.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD02-00394 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020205, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. I believe that my service in the Marine Corps was very honorable and I would be very grateful if it were recorded that way in my service record. 991203: Sgt A_ notified Applicant of unsatisfactory drill participation via home phone and left message that he must come to drill or fax reason for not being able to...

  • AF | DRB | CY2003 | FD2003-00094

    Original file (FD2003-00094.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I 1 AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE CASE NUMBER FD-2003-00094 GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable, change the reason and authority for the discharge, and to change the reenlistment code. The records indicated the applicant received a General Discharge due to a Special Court Martial for falsely altering military identification cards. For your actions, you were verbally counseled and placed in remedial training on or about 19 Dec 97; h....

  • USMC | DRB | 2001_Marine | MD01-00382

    Original file (MD01-00382.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I was trying to make ends meet for my family and at the same time I had to attend my drills without pay. 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 (E and F).The applicant’s issue was a letter in which he described contributing factors in his discharge as well as dental issues that caused him to not participate in required drills. The Board found no evidence in the...

  • USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-00673

    Original file (MD03-00673.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD03-00673 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030305. The Applicant requested the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. th MARDIV] directed the Applicant's discharge under conditions other than honorable by reason of misconduct due to unsatisfactory participation in the Ready Reserve.