Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2004 Marine | MD04-01351
Original file (MD04-01351.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-Pvt, USMC
Docket No. MD04-01351

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20040823. 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 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 20041222. 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. 6210.2.



PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

“ When I entered the Marine Corp I was extremely inexperienced, and without having done any type of research or receiving Proper guidance. I had absolutely no idea what type of training I had signed up for. However, what I did know was that I could pick myself up from a turmoil stemming from heavy drinking and drug use, and get a chance to serve my country in the most Honorable ways the military. Unfortunately, my temperament and up bringing did not prepare me for what I was about to undergo in basic training. Strict regiment and high stress training techniques caused an uncontrolled negative reaction between me and my command. I regret that my drinking habits continued after graduating boot camp and went with me to MOS training. I have since rehabilitated and moved on with my life and now working as a real estate agent. The discharge upgrade would allow me to apply for jobs with no hesitancy or apprehension of my military discharge status being an issue. For that truly was a phase of my life where I learned the hard way. I would just like to clear up this part of my past that has been a difficult path of trail and error. Becoming a productive American Citizen has become my mission objective. So I ask for your kindness and understanding in consideration of this request for a discharge upgrade. Thank you.”
Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Copy of the Applicant’s DD Form 214

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: None
         Inactive: USMCR(J)                991223 - 000102  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 000103               Date of Discharge: 010206

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 01 01 03
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 20                          Years Contracted: 4

Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 69

 Highest Rank: PFC                          MOS: 9999

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Proficiency: 4.1 (2)                       Conduct: 4.0 (2)

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: RMB

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6210.2.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

000817:  Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct. [Specifically, for failure to complete formal school, basic primary MOS 4600, resulting in a reassignment to a future MOS.] Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.


000817:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Articles 86, 92, and 134:
 Violation Article 86 (4 Specifications), Spec 1: In that Private First Class M_ D_, did at Marine Detachment, Fort George G. Meade, Maryland, absent himself from at which he is required to be at the time prescribed being 2345, 12 July 2000, and did so remain until 0045, 13 July 2000.
Spec 2: In that Private First Class M_ D_, did at Marine Detachment, Fort George G. Meade, Maryland, secure himself from his post at 0645 on 13 July 2000, without being properly relieved.
Spec 3: In that Private First Class M_ D_, did at Marine Detachment, Fort George G. Meade, Maryland, absent himself by not being at his appointed place of duty, by securing himself to his barracks room and sleeping until approximately 1100 on 13 July 2000.
Spec 4: In that Private First Class M_ D_, did at Marine Detachment, Fort George G. Meade, Maryland, at 1300, 13 July 2000, absent himself from his appointed scheduled class, being at the Defense Information School, Fort George G. Meade, Maryland, and did so remain until 1430, 13 July 2000.
Violation Article 92 (3 Specifications), Spec 1: In that Private First Class M_ D_, did at Marine Detachment, Fort George G. Meade, Maryland, between the hours of 1900 to 2230, fail to obey order or regulation, by consuming alcoholic beverages.
Spec 2: In that Private First Class M_ D_, did at Marine Detachment, Fort George G. Meade, Maryland, was instructed by Marine Detachment First Sergeant, Gunnery Sergeant J_ L. R_ to report at 1130 on 13 July 2000, and did not report until approximately 1515 on 13 July 2000.
Spec 3: In that Private First Class M_ D_, did at Marine Detachment, Fort George G. Meade, Maryland, at 1700 on 26 July 2000, was given a direct order by Marine Detachment First Sergeant, Gunnery Sergeant J _ L. R_ , not to go up to the female deck of barracks 8608. Private First Class M_ D_ violated that order given by Gunnery Sergeant R_, by going onto the females deck at 0005 on 27 July 2000.
Violation Article 134: In that Private First Class M_ D_, did at Marine Detachment, Fort George G. Meade, Maryland, on the morning of 13 July 2000, urinate in the Detachments drier located in barracks 8606.
Award: Reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $500.00 pay per month for 2 months and 30 days CCU. (Total forfeiture $1000.00) 000817. Forfeiture of $500.00 pay per month is hereby suspended for a period of 2 months, at which time unless sooner vacated, will be remitted w/o further action. (Total suspended forfeiture $500.00). Not appealed.
001004:  Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct. [Specifically, violating, 1 count of Article 109 being (Property other than military property of the United States – waste, spoilage, or destruction), 1 count of Article 128 being (Assault), and 1 count of Article 134 being (Disorderly conduct, drunkenness) of the UCMJ. That on or about 0100, 001001, SNM became drunk and disorderly and started a fight with one PFC P_ during a hotel party in Laurel Maryland, which ended with a destruction of hotel property in the amount of $949.90. SNM was in a direct violation of 1 count of Art 109, 128, and 134 of the UCMJ.] Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued
001004:  Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct. [Specifically, for violating, Article 86 being (Absent without leave), and Article 92 being failure to obey order or regulation, of the UCMJ. That on or about 1700, 001021, SNM was UA from his restriction muster and did so remain until 1720, 001021, and around 2100 on 001021, changed into civilian clothing while still on restriction. SNM was in a direct violation of Articles 86, and 92, of the UCMJ.] Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued

001019:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Articles 109, 128, and 134.
 Violation Article 109: In that Private First Class M_ D_, did at Marine Detachment, Fort George G. Meade, Maryland, did destroy hotel furniture during a fight, which damages totaled $949.00.
Violation Article 128: In that Private First Class M_ D_, did at Marine Detachment, Fort George G. Meade, Maryland, at 0100, on 1 October 2000, assault PFC P_ during a hotel party in Laurel Maryland, by repeatedly punching him in the head.
Violation Article 134: In that Private First Class M_ D_, did at Marine Detachment, Fort George G. Meade, Maryland, at 0100 on 1 October 2000, displayed drunk and disorderly conduct during a hotel party in Laurel Maryland, which conduct was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.
Award: Forfeiture of $217.00 pay per month for 1 month, restricted to limits of mess, billeting, duty, and worship and most direct route to and from w/o suspension from duty for 14 days and extra duty for 14 days to run concurrently. (Total forfeiture $217.00).
001026:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Articles 86 and 92.
Violation Article 86: In that Private First Class M_ D_, did at Marine Detachment, Fort George G. Meade, Maryland, at 1700, on 21 October 2000, absent himself from the appointed restriction and extra duty muster and did so remain until 1720, on 21 October.
Violation Article 92: In that Private First Class M_ D_, did at Marine Detachment, Fort George G. Meade, Maryland, on or about 2100, on 21 October 2000, changed into civilian clothing while on restriction and extra duty. Private D_ is in direct violation of the Commanding Officers restriction policy which states “SNM MUST REMAIN IN UNIFORM WHILE ON RESTRICTION AND EXTRA DUTY”. This statement was signed by Private D_ on 20 October 2000.
Award: Forfeiture of $217.00 pay per month for one month, restriction to limits of mess, billeting, duty, and worship and most direct route to and from without suspension from duty for 14 days and extra duty for 14 days to run concurrently. 7 days extra duty suspended for 6 months.
         
001026:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to minor disciplinary infractions as evidenced by the Applicant’s recent three page 11’s, two being 6105’s and three non-judicial punishment given within a three-month period while attending school. .
001026:  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.

001128:  Command Substance Abuse Counselor, Bethesda MD preliminary recommendations upon evaluation of Applicant. Applicant meets the criteria for an Alcohol Abuse diagnosis.
         Recommendation: Outpatient treatment.

001207:  Administrative Remarks: Applicant’s signature acknowledges the PG 11 entry” “I have been evaluated by a Medical Officer and diagnosed as being alcohol abusive. I have also been counseled regarding my eligibility for treatment for alcohol abuse. I elect not to receive treatment for my alcohol abuse and am aware the I will separating from the Marine Corps due to misconduct due to “Minor” Disciplinary infractions. I have been provided with the name of a VA treatment facility closest to my home of record.

001212:  Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct. [Specifically, SNM in violation of Marine Corps order P1020.34F by selling his Alpha blouse]. Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued
001212:  Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to minor disciplinary infractions. The factual basis for this recommendation was the Applicant’s non-judicial punishment issued on 11 August 2000, 18 October 2000, 26 October 2000, and three page 11’s, two being 6105’s given within the last three months.




010206:  DD Form 214: Applicant discharged
        
[Endorsement letter from GCMCA, Commanding General, Training Command, missing from service record.]

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20010206 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to minor disciplinary infractions (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).

 The Applicant contends that his problems in the Marine Corps can be attributed to his problems with alcohol that caused an “uncontrolled negative reaction between me and my command". While he may feel that his abuse of alcohol was the underlying cause of his misconduct, the record clearly reflects his willful misconduct and demonstrated he was unfit for further service. The evidence of record did not show that the Applicant was either not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions. Relief denied.

T he 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.

When the service of a member of the U.S. Marine Corps has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service as honorable. An Under Other Than Honorable Conditions [or] 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 3 nonjudicial punishment proceedings for violations of Articles 86 (5 specs), 92 (4 specs), 109, 128, and 134 (2 specs) 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 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, credible evidence of having completed, or undergoing, alcohol rehabilitation, 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.

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 Jan 97 until 31 Aug 2001.

B. 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.

C. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part V, Para 502, Propriety .

 D. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part V, Para 503, Equity .

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 | MD0600330

    Original file (MD0600330.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. ]950128: Counseling: Advised of deficiencies in performance and conduct (Found guilty at NJP on 950106 for Article 128. The Applicant admitted guilt to the following violations of the UCMJ, Article 134: Disobeying order to wit: soliciting a money pyramid.960507: SJA review determined the proceedings sufficient in law and fact.960510: GCMCA, Commanding General, 3d...

  • USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0501573

    Original file (MD0501573.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In the acknowledgement letter, the Applicant was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. Mercer County Veteran Services” Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Thirteen pages from applicant’s service record Applicant’s DD Form 214 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type...

  • USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0501574

    Original file (MD0501574.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In the acknowledgement letter, the Applicant was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION Not appealed.020208: Counseling: Advised of deficiencies in performance and conduct (SNM received battalion level NJP on 020207, this was SNM’s third NJP in 19 months.

  • USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0600025

    Original file (MD0600025.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable or general (under honorable conditions). The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, falls well below that required for an upgrade. 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 1999_Marine | MD99-00896

    Original file (MD99-00896.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Should have had a medical discharge. P: Continue light duty with crutches & stress fracture protocol for 14 days, RTC prn increase SX's in 2 weeks.... 980112: BAS MCBH: A: Healing stress fracture in 2, 3, 4 metatarsals/healing fracture of distal fibia/_____ tendonitis in both ankles.

  • USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0500330

    Original file (MD0500330.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Not appealed.890607: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Specification: In that SNM, having knowledge of a lawful order, failed to obey same by wrongfully driving on an unauthorized road with a government vehicle. 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. The...

  • USMC | DRB | 2002_Marine | MD02-01274

    Original file (MD02-01274.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD02-01274 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020903, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. The factual basis for this recommendation was due to Applicant having received non-judicial punishment on two separate occasions for disobeying a lawful order and under age drinking, a psychiatrist has provided a diagnosis of borderline personality disorder which could deteriorate into...

  • USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0501235

    Original file (MD0501235.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable or general (under honorable conditions). The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, falls well below that required for an honorable characterization of service. Only the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) can make changes to reenlistment codes.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-01277

    Original file (ND04-01277.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND04-01277 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20040809. The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. _______________________________________________________________________ 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 and...

  • USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0501381

    Original file (MD0501381.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION The infractions cited in the commanding officer’s recommendation occurred prior to corrective actions and did not warrant admin separation until my enlistment was due to expire.”Additional issues submitted by Applicant’s representative: “Issue 1: Whether applicant received a fair & impartial hearing on discharge by not having the recommendations of his superior officers, whom had direct knowledge of his military ethics & bearing, considered...