Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2004 Marine | MD04-01445
Original file (MD04-01445.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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


ex-PFC, USMC
Docket No. MD04-01445

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. The Applicant requested a documentary record review. The Applicant did not list a representative on his 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: GENERAL ( UNDER 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. “To enable to get G. I. Bill and apply for home loan ”
Documentation
The Applicant did not submit any additional documentation for the Board to consider while deliberating his case.

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 941212               Date of Discharge: 960506

 Length of Service (years, months, days):
         Active: 01 04 25
          Inactive: None
Age at Entry: 20                          Years Contracted: 4

Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 60

 Highest Rank: PFC                          MOS: 0352 (Antitank Assault Guided Missleman)
Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Proficiency: 4.3 (4)                       Conduct: 4.3 (4)
Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM
Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

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

GENERAL ( UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS) /MISCONDUCT, authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6210.6.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

960215:  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 the Applicant’s “involvement in an organization that espouses supremacist causes, specifically “Fifth Reich.”
960216:  Applicant advised of rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge Board.
960311:  Applicant conditionally waived his right to appear before an Administrative Discharge Board in consideration of being separated with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge.

960319:  Commanding officer recommended discharge with a service characterization of general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense. The factual basis for this recommendation was the Applicant’s “involvement in an organization that espouses supremacist causes, specifically “Fifth Reich.”

960408:  SJA review determined the case sufficient in law and fact.
960408:  GCMCA [Commanding General, 1 st Marine Division (Rein)] directed the Applicant's separation with a General ( Under Honorable Conditions) discharged 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 separated on 19960506 with a General ( Under Honorable Conditions) discharged for misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense (A and). 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 Veterans Administration determines eligibility for post-service benefits not the Navy Discharge Review Board (NDRB). There is no requirement or law that grants recharacterization solely on the issue of obtaining Veteran’s benefits and this issue does not serve to provide foundation upon which the Board can grant relief.

In the Applicant’s case, the Board discovered no impropriety or inequity; thereby, considering the Applicant’s discharge proper and equitable . A characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions is warranted when the service member’s conduct constitutes a significant departure from that expected of a member of the United States Marine Corps. The record is devoid of any evidence the Applicant was not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions. The Applicant’s summary of service clearly reflects his disregard for the orders and directives regulating good order and discipline in the naval service, while demonstrating he was unsuitable for further service. An upgrade from General (under honorable conditions) to Honorable would be inappropriate. Relief denied.
  
 T here 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 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. Verifiable proof of any post-service accomplishments must be provided in order for the Applicant to claim post-service conduct and behavior as a reason to upgrade a less than honorable discharge. Evidence of continuing educational pursuits, a positive employment record, documentation of community service, and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities, are examples of verifiable documents that should be provided to receive consideration for relief, based on post-service conduct. The Applicant did not provided verifiable documentation for the Board to consider during the deliberation of his case.
 
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 additional documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments 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 18 Aug 95 until 30 Jan 97).

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 | 2003_Marine | MD03-01462

    Original file (MD03-01462.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD03-01462 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030909. c. Offenses involving drug abuse shall be processed for separation by reason of the appropriate drug abuse offense in paragraph 6210.5, as well as, other applicable reason in this Manual. Counseling per paragraph 6105 is not required for processing a Marine for separation under this paragraph, unless the Marine is processed under paragraph 6210.2 or 6210.3.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004 Marine | MD04-01264

    Original file (MD04-01264.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. c. Offenses involving drug abuse shall be processed for separation by reason of the appropriate drug abuse offense in paragraph 6210.5, as well as, other applicable reason in this Manual. Counseling per paragraph 6105 is not required for processing a Marine for separation under this paragraph, unless the Marine is processed under paragraph 6210.2 or 6210.3.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004 Marine | MD04-00074

    Original file (MD04-00074.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. Counseling per paragraph 6105 is not required for processing a Marine for separation under this paragraph, unless the Marine is processed under paragraph 6210.2 or 6210.3.9. If processing is based solely upon evidence that may not be considered in determining characterization of service, the separation authority may direct retention, or approve an...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004 Marine | MD04-00601

    Original file (MD04-00601.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. _______________________________________________________________________ In accordance with 32 C.F.R., section 724.166 and SECNAVINST 5420.174C, enclosure (1), paragraph 1.16, The American Legion submits to the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB or Board) the above issue and following statement in supplement to this Applicant’s petition. If processing is based solely upon...

  • USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-01378

    Original file (MD03-01378.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD03-01378 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030813. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to uncharacterized. Counseling per paragraph 6105 is not required for processing a Marine for separation under this paragraph, unless the Marine is processed under paragraph 6210.2 or 6210.3.

  • USMC | DRB | 1999_Marine | MD99-00506

    Original file (MD99-00506.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214 Letter from Applicant Service Related Documents (7pgs) PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: USMC None Inactive: USMCR(J) 920608 - 930125 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 930126 Date of Discharge: 960722 Length...

  • USMC | DRB | 2000_Marine | MD00-01026

    Original file (MD00-01026.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Age at Entry: 21 Years Contracted: 6 Education Level: 12 AFQT: 90 Highest Rank: LCpl Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks): Proficiency: 4.3 (7) Conduct: 4.2 (7) Military Decorations: None Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: GCM Days of Unauthorized Absence: None Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance):UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Misconduct-Commission of a serious offense admin discharge board waived, authority:MARCORSEPMAN...

  • USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0500310

    Original file (MD0500310.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. 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 introduced no decisional issues for consideration by the NDRB. The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge to...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-01465

    Original file (ND04-01465.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Statement: In accordance with 32 CFR § 724, and SECNAVINST 5420.174D, the Veterans of Foreign Wars submits to the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) the above issue and following statement in supplement to the Applicant’s petition. 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 dated August 27, 2004 Eight pages from Applicant’s service record PART IV -...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004 Marine | MD04-00327

    Original file (MD04-00327.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. Issues, as stated Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:Issue 1: “I feel that I was unfairly judged and charged with an other than honorable discharge, and has influenced a negative impact on finding a job in the civilian world.” Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the...