Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2004 Marine | MD04-01322
Original file (MD04-01322.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-Pvt, USMC
Docket No. MD04-01322

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20040818. 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 20050304. 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: BAD CONDUCT DISCHARGE/COURT-MARTIAL, authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 1105.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION


Issues, as stated

 Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

1. “This was an isolated incident my whole time in the Marine Corps. My record was impeccable prior to. I love the Marine Corps and in no way did this incident have anything to do with the Marines. I had a lot of serious family issues all going on at once, and I made an error in judgement, and put my own needs before the Marine Corps and my unit. It had nothing to do with how I felt towards the Marine Corps.”
Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Applicant’s DD Form 214
Ltr from HQMC dtd 040525
Promotion warrant dtd 990202
Promotion warrant dtd 980821
Ltr of Appreciation from CO, Marine Corps Recruiting Station Cleveland dtd 990223
NMCCCA decision decided 020830 (3 pages)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: None
         Inactive: USMCR(J)                980518 - 980525  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 980526               Date of Discharge: 030115

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 04 07 20                  [Does not exclude lost time]
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 20                          Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 39

 Highest Rank: LCpl                         MOS: 0861

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Proficiency: 3.4*                          Conduct: 3.0

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: None

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: 66

*Marks extracted from Record of Trial

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

BAD CONDUCT DISCHARGE/COURT-MARTIAL, authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 1105.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

981204:  Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct. [Academic failure at MAGTF Intelligence Specialist Course] Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.

990613:  Applicant to UA.

990629:  Applicant from UA.

990827:  Summary Court-Martial.
         Charge I: violation of the UCMJ, Article 86.
         Specification: Unauthorized absence from 990613 until apprehended 990629 (17 das).
         Finding: Guilty.
         Sentence: Forfeiture of $639.00, reduced to E-1 and 60 das restriction.
         [Extracted from Staff Judge Advocate Recommendation dtd 000927 & Record of Trial, Prosecutor Exhibit 3]
990829:  Applicant to unauthorized absence.

991016:  Applicant apprehended by civil authorities, to confinement.

000225:  Special Court-Martial.
         Charge: violation of the UCMJ, Article 86:
         Specification: Did on 990829, w/o auth, abs himself from his unit until apprehended on 991016 (49 das).
         Additional Charge I: violation of the UCMJ, Article 121:
         Specification 1: Did on 990829 steal one set of car keys, one wallet and one credit card, all of some value, the prop of LCpl C. J. D_, USMC.
         Specification 2: Did on 990829 steal an automobile, two pagers, one pair of sunglasses and one compact disc case containing fifty compact discs, all of a value in excess of $100.00, the prop of LCpl C. J. D_, USMC.
         Specification 3: Did, fr abt 990829 to abt 991010 steal an airline ticket of a value in excess of $100.00, the prop of United Airlines.
         Additional Charge II: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 134:
         Specification: Having been restricted to the limits of pl of mess, billeting, worship and pl of du, by a person auth to do so, did, on 990829, break said restriction.
         Findings: to Charge I and specification thereunder, guilty. To Additional Charge I and the specifications thereunder, except in Specification 1, excepting the words “one set of car keys, one wallet,” and further excepting the word “all,” and in Specification 2, excepting the word “steal,” substituting the words “wrongfully appropriate one set of car keys, one wallet.” Additional Charge II: withdrawn.
         Sentence: Fine of $670.00 pay per month for 6 mos, confinement for 180 days and a bad conduct discharge.
         CA 001107: Sentence approved and ordered executed except for the BCD.

000312:  From confinement, to duty.

000322:  To appellate leave.

010108:  To involuntary appellate leave.

010621:  NC&PB denied clemency and restoration.

020830:  NMCCCA: Affirmed findings and sentence.

021209:  NMCARA: No petition being received, appellate review considered complete.

021230:  SSPCMO: Article 71c, UCMJ, having been complied with, Bad Conduct discharge ordered executed.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20030115 with a bad conduct discharge which was the sentence adjudged by a properly convened special court-martial. That sentence was subsequently approved by both the convening and appellate review authorities (A and (B). The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (C).

Issue 1. With respect to a discharge adjudged by a court-martial case, the action of the NDRB is restricted to upgrades based on clemency. Clemency is an act of leniency that reduces the severity of the punishment imposed. After a thorough review of the Applicant’s record, issues submitted, and post service accomplishments, the Board determined that clemency was not warranted and that the sentence awarded the Applicant at his court-martial was appropriate for the offenses he committed. Additionally, the NDRB has no jurisdiction over reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Navy, Marine Corps, or any other of the Armed Forces, NDRB is not authorized to change a reenlistment code. 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. Representation at a personal appearance hearing is recommended but not required.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A. Paragraph 1105, DISCHARGE ADJUDGED BY SENTENCE OF COURT-MARTIAL , of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16F), effective 01 September 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 86, unauthorized absence for more than 30 days.
C. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part II, AUTHORITY/POLICY FOR DEPARTMENTAL DISCHARGE REVIEW.

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 “ http://Boards.law.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:

                  Secretary of the Navy Council of Review Boards
                   Attn: Naval Discharge Review Board
                   720 Kennon Street SE Rm 309
                  Washington Navy Yard DC 20374-5023


Similar Decisions

  • USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0600022

    Original file (MD0600022.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Issues, as stated Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:“Request upgrade of DD Form 214 discharge, “Character of Service”” After a thorough review of the Applicant’s record and issues submitted, the Board determined that clemency is not warranted. 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 112A Wrongful use, possession, etc.

  • USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0600504

    Original file (MD0600504.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. D. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part II, Para 211, Regularity of Government Affairs. You may view DoD Instruction 1332.28 and other Decisional Documents by going online at “...

  • USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0600435

    Original file (MD0600435.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    As my punishment, I was sentenced to 60 days in the Military Brigg and was going to be discharged under “General/Under Honorable Conditions.” While incarcerated, my discharge was downgraded to “Bad Conduct” because of Marijuana residue that was found in my room.I believe that the discharge should upgraded due to the fact that it is based on two incidents from out of the latter part of my 4+ years of service. Findings : Guilty Sentence: Confinement for 45 days, Bad Conduct discharge. The...

  • USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0600950

    Original file (MD0600950.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions). PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 20050826 with a bad conduct discharge which was the sentence adjudged by a properly convened special court-martial. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004 Marine | MD04-01438

    Original file (MD04-01438.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD04-01438 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20040913. The Applicant requested the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. At this time, the Applicant has not provided sufficient documentation for the Board to consider an upgrade.

  • USMC | DRB | 2000_Marine | MD00-00997

    Original file (MD00-00997.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214 (2 copies) PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: None Inactive: USMCR(J) 920520 - 920915 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 920916 Date of Discharge: 960411 Length of Service (years, months, days):Active: 03 06 26 (Doesn't exclude lost or confinement...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004 Marine | MD04-00235

    Original file (MD04-00235.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD04-00235 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20031120. In June of 1998, I was given a Bad Conduct Discharge and afterwards spend 45 days in the Camp Pendleton Base Brig.I am requesting that the review board upgrade my discharge to an entry-level separation. At this time, the Applicant has not provided sufficient documentation for the Board to consider.The Applicantis reminded that he remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an...

  • USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0500486

    Original file (MD0500486.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. CA 010420: The sentence approved and, except for the bad conduct discharge, ordered executed, but execution of that portion of the sentence adjudging all confinement in excess of 30 days is suspended for a period of 12 months from the date of trial, at which time, unless sooner vacated, the suspended portion of the sentence will be remitted without further action. The...

  • USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0600180

    Original file (MD0600180.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In accordance with Title 32, CFR, section 724.116 and SECNAVINST 5420.174D, Part I, Paragraph 1.20, The American Legion submits to the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB or Board) the above issue(s) and following statement in supplement to this Applicant’s petition. Appeal denied.000807: Applicant found fit for separation.000815: Acknowledged understanding of eligibility but not recommended for promotion to Cpl for the month of August because of weight control/military appearance and...

  • USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0600758

    Original file (MD0600758.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Commanding Officer’s comments: “[Applicant] was found guilty of Article 86and Article 90 on 031203. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 20050810 with a bad conduct discharge which was the sentence adjudged by a properly convened special court-martial. 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...