Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0500353
Original file (MD0500353.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-LCpl, USMC
Docket No. MD05-00353

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20041215. 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 20050331. 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. 6210.6.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION


 Issues, as stated

 Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

1. “My discharge was inequitable because it was based on an incident which transpired off base. My innocence was not properly represented which resulted in my pleading guilty. I have served this County at home and abroad for 6 years and 8 months in an exemplary manner. Proven by my awards, and have no other adverse actions.”

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
None

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: USMC              940628 – 981022  HON
         Inactive: USMCR(J)                940426 – 940627          COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 981023               Date of Discharge: 010228

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 02 04 05
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 22                          Years Contracted: 4

Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 68

 Highest Rank: Sgt                          MOS: 8151/0311

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks): All enlisted performance reports were made available to the Board for review.

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NMCAM, MUC, GCM(2), AFEM, HSM, NDSM, OSR(2), SSDR(2), MSGR, MM(3), COC, LOA(3), REB(2)

 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. 6210.6.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

981023:  Reenlisted at MSGBN (STATE DEPT), Quantico, VA for 4 years.
001101:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with the least favorable characterization of service as under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.
001101:  Applicant advised of rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge Board.

001207:  Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

010125:  Applicant waived Administrative Discharge Board.
010131:  Civil Conviction [Superior Court of California, County of San Diego]: Two counts of violating California Penal Code Section 261a (Rape). Sentenced to 16 years incarceration.
010207:  SJA review determined the case sufficient in law and fact.

010207:  GCMCA [CG, 1 st Marine Division] directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions 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 discharged on 20010228 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense (A and 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. Despite a servicemember’s prior record of service, certain serious offenses, even though isolated, warrant separation from the Marine Corps in order to maintain proper order and discipline. Further, an under other than honorable conditions 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 civil conviction for two counts of rape. 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 Applicant contends that his, “innocence was not properly represented” leading him to plead guilty. The Board found no evidence in the record that the Applicant was improperly represented or denied due process. The Applicant waived his right to an administrative discharge board, pleaded guilty at civil court and was convicted of two counts of rape. Relief denied.

In the Applicant’s case, the Board could discern no impropriety or inequity and therefore consider the Applicant’s discharge proper and equitable. The Applicant contends his discharge “was inequitable because it was based on an incident which transpired off base.” Neither administrative separation nor the reason for separation, misconduct due to commission of a serious offense, require that the service member violate the UCMJ or civil law “on base.” Accordingly, relief on this basis is not warranted. 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 6210, MISCONDUCT of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16E), effective 31 January 1997 until 31 August 2001).

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 120, rape.

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.

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

E. 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

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004 Marine | MD04-00297

    Original file (MD04-00297.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. 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. You should read Enclosure (5) of the Directive before submitting such a complaint.

  • USMC | DRB | 2002_Marine | MD02-01240

    Original file (MD02-01240.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    He was discharged and I was still in. 000920: Applicant’s Base driving privileges reinstated.010604: 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 pending civil trial for statutory rape and forcible rape of an intoxicated person, both felony charges.010605: Applicant’s civilian lawyer (M_ L_) advised command that he was representing Applicant on a criminal...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-01010

    Original file (ND00-01010.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    When I was later incarcerated by civilian authorities TRITRAFAC took administrative action for my being "Absent Without Leave", a situation that existed only because TRITRAFAC had cancelled my retirement. Applicant released without bond.960403: Authorization for applicant's transfer to the Fleet Reserve, under ther Temporary Early Retirement Authority (TERA) Program has been cancelled by Chief of Naval Personnel (PERS-27).960525: Applicant to unauthorized absence 0730, 25May96.960528: Civil...

  • USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0501145

    Original file (MD0501145.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant was sentenced to the United States Bureau of Prison for a term of 87 months to be followed by 3 years of supervised release, a special assessment of $100, forfeiture of over $6,000 in cash and their automobile.040506: Commanding Officer, 2d Marines, recommended to Commanding General, 2d Marine Division, that the Applicant be discharged under other than honorable conditions by reason of a commission of a serious offense. 040719: An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00171

    Original file (ND04-00171.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable or general/under honorable conditions. I had a good service record before the allegations & should speak highly as my personal integrity.”Applicant marked the box "I HAVE LISTED ADDITIONAL ISSUES AS AN ATTACHMENT TO THIS APPLICATION." ]000919: Applicant informed by Commanding Officer of Family Advocacy Program Case Review Committee’s determination of substantiation of child...

  • USMC | DRB | 2000_Marine | MD00-00143

    Original file (MD00-00143.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:None PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: None Inactive: USMCR(J) 940929 - 950711 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 950712 Date of Discharge: 970620 Length of Service (years, months, days):Active: 01 11 09 Inactive: None After a thorough review of the records, supporting...

  • USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-01504

    Original file (MD03-01504.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Decision A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20040617. Sense the Due process of law had not yet been processed and had not been either been found innocent or guilty by my peers in a court of law on the date the Unite States Marine Corps decide unjust fully Other than Honorable discharge me. (His discharge was) not Only Unjust but unconstitutional as well.” After a very careful review of the Applicant’s record, the board found nothing that would support the...

  • USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0500518

    Original file (MD0500518.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Due to that felony charge I, I was discharged by the Marine Corps 8 months later. The Veterans Administration determines eligibility for post-service benefits not the Naval Discharge Review Board.

  • USMC | DRB | 1999_Marine | MD99-00489

    Original file (MD99-00489.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    This can not be called a repeated offense of theft, because my civil court concluded on 970528 that it was two counts of possession and not felonious larceny as stated on my discharge paperwork. Supervised probation for 18 months.970711: 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 conviction on July 2, 1997 by the State of North Carolina for two charges of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004 Marine | MD04-00093

    Original file (MD04-00093.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    This was not the separation I agreed to nor does it reflect my 14 years of spotless service, including 4 Good Conduct Medals. The Applicant’s characterization of service is determined by the separation authority, not the Applicant’s Commanding Officer. The separation authority directed the Applicant’s discharge due to the commission of a serious offense and assigned a separation code of “HKQ1.” An erroneous DD214 was issued and later properly corrected by the issuing of a DD215 that...