Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0500635
Original file (MD0500635.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-LCpl, USMC
Docket No. MD05-00635

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20050228. 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 20050608. 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/IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT-MARTIAL, authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6419.


PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION


 Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

 1. “I feel my discharge was improper due to certain factors that were not taken into consideration. I feel DCAC (Depot Consolidated Administration Center) did not do their job properly. When I had my SRB audits DCAC simply asked me if I was married: I was never asked if my husband lived with me. DCAC knew that I lived in the barracks. At no point was I questioned about this until I was charged with stealing money from the government. My superiors knew of my situation and none of them advised me of the proper use of BAQ. There are a lot of persons at fault in this case and I was the only one who suffered. I did not in anyway try to steal from the government. I loved the Marine Corps. I thought because I was married that I rated the BAQ. That is what I was told. I accepted discharge because at the time my lawyer advised me that this was the safest and sure way that no one would take my newborn baby away. My lawyer had also advised me that I could apply for an upgrade which I am doing now. I am not a criminal. I feel this was an hones tmistake from lack of information. I feel I should have been allowed to stay in the Marines and have the monies be taken out of my base pay to pay back the government. Had I not been forced out I would have made a career out of the military. I always received excellent pro/cons in the range of 4.6 to 3.0 range. These are not the marks of a dishonest marine. Since then I have repaid all the money owed and wish that you please review my file and supporting documents that I have enclosed and consider giving me an Honorable discharge. If DCAC and my superiors had performed their jobs none of this would have happened. This will not only help me but will also help my family as I am married and have two children. With an upgraded discharge, I will be able to hold my head up with pride from serving my country. I would also be able to display my plaques and pictures with pride knowing justice was finally served honorably.

Thank you”
Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Letter from Assistant Chief of Staff, Supply and Services, Marine Corps Recruit          Depot/Eastern Recruiting Region, dated August 15, 1996
Statement from Captain, USMCR, (Not dated)
Letter from 1 st Lt, Clothing Division Officer, dated October 10, 1996
Letter from Master Sergeant, Staff Non-commissioned Officer in Charge, Clothing Division,        dated October 10, 1996
Letter from Staff Sergeant, Operations Chief, Clothing Division, dated October 10, 1996
Form dated July 26, 1996

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: None
         Inactive: USMCR(J)                930709 - 940306  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 940307               Date of Discharge: 961017

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 02 07 11
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 20                          Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 58

 Highest Rank: LCpl                         MOS: 3043
Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Proficiency: 4.6 (5)                       Conduct: 4.5 (5)

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM, RMB

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT-MARTIAL, authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6419.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

951004:  Applicant referred to Branch Medical Clinic for Fitness for Duty evaluation. CO’s comments: “Since arriving on Parris Island in August 1994 this Marine had missed excessive amounts of work due to sickness and injury. She has been unable to take the Physical Fitness Test, go to the Rifle Range, or participate in other training events this Company has conducted.”
951018:  Applicant is medically cleared. Medical Officer recommends a MHU referral.
960229:  Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct. [Since the last pro/con reporting period your attitude has shown a lack of initiative and ability to handle responsibility. Due to your constant absence from work for medical reasons, your ability to complete your assigned tasked has diminished.] Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.

960315:  Applicant informed eligible but not recommended for promotion to Corporal for the (Apr, May, Jun) 1996, 2d quarter promotion period due to my recent page 11 entry.

960917:  Applicant informed eligible but not recommended for promotion to Corporal for the Oct, Nov, Dec 1996 Promotion quarter due to pending court martial.

961017:  DD Form 214: Applicant discharged under other than honorable conditions in lieu of trial by court-martial, authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6419.

 Applicant’s separation package missing from service record.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

 Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19961017 under other than honorable conditions by reason of separation in lieu of trial by court-martial (A). After a thorough review of the available records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (B and C). The presumption of regularity of governmental affairs was applied by the Board in this case in the absence of a complete discharge package (D).

Issue 1. In the absence of a complete discharge package, the Board presumed regularity of governmental affairs. Therefore, the Board presumed the Applicant requested discharge to escape trial by court-martial, had the elements of the offense(s) for which she was charged fully explained by counsel, that she was guilty of the offense(s) and that she had a complete understanding of the negative consequences of her actions. The evidence of record does not demonstrate that the Applicant was not responsible for her conduct or that she should not be held accountable for her actions. Relief denied.

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 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, 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 her discharge at that time. Representation at a personal appearance hearing is recommended but not required.







Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A. Paragraph 6419, SEPARATION IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT-MARTIAL , of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16E), effective
18 Aug 95 until 31 August 2001.
B. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part V, Para 502, Propriety .

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

 D. 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

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004 Marine | MD04-00690

    Original file (MD04-00690.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD04-00690 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20040322. 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.

  • USMC | DRB | 2002_Marine | MD02-00341

    Original file (MD02-00341.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD02-00341 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020129, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, NDRB discerned no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the applicant’s service. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

  • USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-00772

    Original file (MD03-00772.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD03-00772 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030326. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. On 19940915, the Applicant requested discharge for the good of the service to escape trial by court- martial.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004 Marine | MD04-00980

    Original file (MD04-00980.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD04-00980 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20040526. The Applicant requests a documentary record review. Relief not warranted.The Applicant is reminded that he remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of his discharge.

  • USMC | DRB | 2002_Marine | MD02-00665

    Original file (MD02-00665.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD02-00665 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020411, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. The Applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. My Officer in Charge (CWO3 J_), sat me down, and CWO3 J_ put in two in his office and called my wife a "junkie", saying she took too much medicine.

  • USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0500450

    Original file (MD0500450.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). Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant’s DD Form 214 Applicant’s résume Character Reference ltr from H_ W_, dtd January 27, 2005 [unsigned] Character Reference ltr from C_ T_, dtd January 27, 2005 [unsigned] Character Reference...

  • USMC | DRB | 2002_Marine | MD02-00922

    Original file (MD02-00922.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD02-00922 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020614, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. After repeated requests for assistance from the command and no apparent actions made by the CO, she returned to me for assistance. On 990216, the Applicant requested discharge for the good of the service to escape trial by court- martial.

  • USMC | DRB | 1999_Marine | MD99-00932

    Original file (MD99-00932.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD99-00932 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 990629, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable conditions. I went to Lt.Col W_ and requested to get out of the Marines that I was not happy about the way my career was being changed for some one else. 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2002_Marine | MD02-00599

    Original file (MD02-00599.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION I wasn't going to go through with another enlistment. Documentation In addition to the service record (there was NO DISCHARGE PACKAGE AVAILABLE), the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Permanent Change of Station Orders Incomplete DD Form 214 (Handwritten Information)Report of Separation and Record of Service Copy of DD Form 214 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service,...

  • USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-01332

    Original file (MD03-01332.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD03-01332 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030805. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions and that the RE Code be changed. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type...