Upgrade.Vet

USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0501538

Original file (MD0501538.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

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

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

ex-Warrant Officer, USMC
Docket No. MD05-01538

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20050914. The Applicant requests the Discharge 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 designate a representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20060726. 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 and the reason for discharge shall not change. The discharge shall remain General (Under Honorable Conditions) by reason of resignation unacceptable conduct.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application to the Board:

“Issue 1) I request my discharge be changes from General (Under Honorable) to Honorable. My discharge was inequitable because of one isolated incident in 14 years and three months of service with no other adverse action. This period of service included many forms of recognition for superior service. This included the receipt of the Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal after my NJP. In addition, upon review of my NJP you will see that I only received a letter of reprimand for my punishment. If the offense was more severe should I not have received greater punishment.

Issue 2) I request the board to change the Narrative reason for separation from Resig Unacceptable Conduct to one that reflects years of faithful service. I understand that it would have to reflect that I resigned But could the wording become less harsh.

Issue 3) Request the Board reevaluate my Reenlistment code. Request a code that may allow me to continue to serve my nation in its time of need.”

Documentation

In addition to the service and medical records, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:

Applicant’s DD Form 214 (Warrant Officer)
Applicant’s DD Form 214 (Enlisted)
Sixty-one pages from Applicant’s enlisted service record
Letter to Applicant’s wife from R_ E. L_, Colonel, U.S. Marine Corps, Commanding         Officer, The Basic School, dtd June 23, 1998
Six pages from Applicant’s officer record
Letter from Applicant, dtd October 3, 2005
Employment Performance levels (4 pages)
Michigan Milk Producers Association employee performance appraisal managerial, dtd       January 21, 2002 (7 pages)
Michigan Milk Producers Association employee performance appraisal managerial, dtd       February 5, 2004 (7 pages)
Michigan Milk Producers Association employee performance appraisal managerial, dtd       January 29, 2003 (7 pages)
Michigan Milk Producers Association employee performance appraisal managerial, dtd       January 17, 2001 (6 pages)
Michigan Milk Producers Association employee performance appraisal managerial, dtd       January 10, 2000 (6 pages)
Transcript (3 pages)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):

         Inactive: USMCR (DEP)    19840121 - 19841001      COG
         Active: USMC     19841002 - 19980201      HON

Period of Service Under Review :

Date of Appointment: 19980202            Date of Discharge: 19990101

Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 00 10 27
         Inactive: None

Time Lost During This Period (days):

         Unauthorized absence: None
         Confinement:              None

Age at Appointment to Warrant Officer: 31

Type of Appointment: Regular (Indefinite)

Education Level: 12

Highest Grade: Warrant Officer

Final Officer’s Fitness Reports were available to the Board for review.

Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, (as listed on the DD Form 214): Meritorious Mast, Letter of Recognition, Letter of Appreciation (4 ^th Awd), Good Conduct Medal w/3*, Letter of Commendation, Certificate of Commendation (3d Awd), Sea Service Deployment Ribbon, Meritorious Unit Commendation w/1*, National Defense Service Medal, Southwest Asia Service Medal w/2*, Navy Unit Citation w/1*, Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal, Kuwait Liberation Medal (Kuwait), Kuwait Liberation Medal (Saudi Arabia).

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/Unacceptable conduct, authority: SECNAVINST 1920.6A.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

980202: Applicant appointed as a Warrant Officer in the United States Marine Corps.

980727: NOTIFICATION OF ARTICLE 15, UCMJ, HEARING from Commanding General, 2d Force Service Support Group to the Applicant. Notifies Applicant of intent to conduct an Article 15, UCMJ hearing. The Applicant was advised that he was accused of violating Article 92 of the UCMJ (dereliction of duty/violation of a lawful general regulation) and of Article 121 of the UCMJ (wrongful appropriation).

980804: MEMORANDUM OF ACCEPTANCE OF COMMANDING GENERAL’S NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT submitted by the Applicant to the Commanding General, 2d Force Service Support Group. Applicant offers to accept Commanding General’s nonjudicial punishment, to plead guilty to the misconduct alleged under Charge I and to submit his qualified resignation after the announcement if nonjudicial punishment in exchange for Charge II and its specifications being withdrawn and dismissed and a recommendation for approval of my request for a qualified resignation.

980804: REQUEST FOR RESIGNATION FOR CAUSE IN LIEU OF ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESSING FOR SEPARATION IN THE CASE OF WARRANT OFFICER (WO1) E_ R. S_ (Applicant) submitted by the Applicant to the Secretary of the Navy. Applicant voluntarily tenders his qualified resignation of his warrant in the United States Marine Corps in lieu of processing for administrative separation for cause. This resignation will follow punishment awarded by the Commanding General, 2d Force Service Support Group under Article 15, UCMJ, and is based on the understanding that I may potentially be required to show cause (Board of Inquiry) why I should remain in the U. S. Marine Corps. The Applicant understands that he could be administratively separated from the U.S. Marine Corps with an other than honorable (characterization of service) discharge based on the findings and recommendations of a Board of Inquiry should his request for a qualified resignation be denied and he is required to show cause.

980806: Applicant notified of Article 15, UCMJ hearing and acknowledged understanding of election of rights. Charges: Charge I: Violation of Article 92, Uniform Code of Military Justice
Specification 1:
In that Warrant Officer 1 E_ R. S_(Applicant), Headquarters and Service Battalion, 2d Force Service Support Group, who knew or should have known of his duties at Marine Aviation Training Support Group, Pensacola, from between 6 December 1997 and 11 February 1998, was derelict in the performance of these duties in that he willfully failed to perform the following actions, as it was his duty to do, to wit:
1. ensure that all advances that he requested, directed to be entered into the disbursing system, authorized and/or received in association with his move to Camp Lejeune and training at The Basic School that had appropriate appropriation data;
2. ensure that he only request, direct to be entered into the disbursing system, authorize and/or receive advances in association with his move to Camp Lejeune and training at The Basic School that he was lawfully entitled to receive;
3. prepare and submit a request for advance travel allowances and forward it through the appropriate administrative officials;
4. use a computation sheet to establish an audit trail for all of his advances he received in association with his move to Camp Lejeune and training at The Basic School;
5. provide the Commanding Officer with a written justification for excess advances that he received in association with his move to Camp Lejeune and training at The Basic School; and
6. immediately return excess advance pay that received upon discovery of an erroneous payment.
Specification 2:
In that Warrant Officer 1 E_ R. S_(Applicant), Headquarters and Service Battalion, 2d Force Service Support Group, who knew or should have known of his duties at Marine Aviation Training Support Group, Pensacola, from between 6 December 1997 and 11 February 1998, was derelict in the performance of these duties in that he willfully failed to perform the following actions, as it was his duty to do, to wit:
1. report to the disbursing officer that he was taking action and authorizing payments involving dishonored checks that he and his wife had written to the Navy Exchange;
2. obtain authorization for the disbursing officer to certify a voucher for liquidation of debts incurred in reimbursing the Navy Exchange for dishonored checks that he and his wife had written;
3. obtain certification of his personal pay information of the unit diary from an appropriate certifying authority;
4. properly compute a liquidation schedule for the debt incurred in paying off the Navy Exchange, based on principles used in the normal course of disbursing business;
5. forward a DD form 2277 to DFAS-KCMO to request liquidation of dishonored checks; and
6. notify the Commanding Officer that the checks had been dishonored, and that the debt was going to be liquidated by the disbursing office.
Specification 3:
In that Warrant Officer 1 E_ R. S_(Applicant), Headquarters and Service Battalion, 2d Force Service Support Group, did, at Marine Aviation Training Support Group, Pensacola, from between 6 December 1997 and 11 February 1998, violate a lawful general regulation, to wit: Standards of Ethical Conduct, 5 Code of Federal Regulations 2635, by wrongfully using his position as a staff noncommissioned officer and as an apparent deputy disbursing officer and disbursing agent, to accomplish the following improper actions:
a. to cause personnel at the Disbursing office to which he was assigned to compute and enter allowances into the system which he was not entitled to receive;
b. to obtain authorization to take actions concerning his own personal pay account without informing appropriate authorities in the chain of command or providing required justification for the actions;
c. to receive preferential treatment in allowing liquidation of debts he had incurred and payment over an extended period which he was not entitled, but for his status in disbursing, to receive; and
d. to receive advances on travel in excess of authorized amounts for a person in his position making a permanent change of station move.
Charge II: Violation of Article 121, Uniform Code of Military Justice
Specification 1:
In that Warrant Officer 1 E_ R. S_(Applicant), Headquarters and Service Battalion, 2d Force Service Support Group, did, at Marine Aviation Training Support Group, Pensacola, Florida, between on or about 3 February 1998 and on or about 11 February 1998, wrongfully appropriate U. S. currency, of a value of Eight Hundred Dollars ($800.00), property of the United States Government.
Specification 2:
In that Warrant Officer 1 E_ R. S_(Applicant), Headquarters and Service Battalion, 2d Force Service Support Group, did, at Marine Aviation Training Support Group, Pensacola, Florida, on or about 18 December 1997, wrongfully appropriate U. S. currency, of a value of Nine Hundred and Sixty Two Dollars ($962.00), property of the United States Government.

980831: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92 (Dereliction of duty and violation of a lawful general regulation).          Award: Punitive letter of reprimand from the Commanding General, 2d Force Service Support Group. NC. Not Appealed.

980831: PUNITIVE LETTER OF REPRIMAND from the Commanding General, 2d Force Service Support Group. Commanding General’s comments: “ Your (Applicant’s) actions represent a substantial departure from the conduct expected of Marine officers. Your conduct demonstrates extremely poor judgment and a betrayal of the special trust and confidence placed in you as an officer.”

Undated:         ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RIGHT TO APPEAL LETTER OF REPRIMAND AND TO SUBMIT STATEMENT OF EXPLANATION FOR INCLUSION IN OMPF AND/OR WAIVER OF THOSE RIGHTS submitted by Applicant to Commanding General, 2d Force Service Support Group. Applicant acknowledged right to appeal Letter of Reprimand and to submit statement of explanation for inclusion in OMPF and/or waiver of those rights. Applicant elects not to appeal the Letter of Reprimand. Applicant elects to make a statement for inclusion.

980911: ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT APPEAL RIGHTS submitted by the Applicant to the Commanding General, 2d Force Service Support Group. Applicant acknowledged nonjudicial punishment appeal rights and did not intend to appeal the imposition of NJP. Applicant states that he has been notified of his right to submit a request for (resignation/retirement) in lieu of administrative processing. Applicant elected to submit a request for resignation in lieu of administrative separation.

980911   REQUEST FOR INCLUSION OF LETTER IN REBUTTAL TO PUNITIVE LETTER OF REPRIMAND submitted by Applicant to Commanding General, 2d Force Service Support Group. Applicants comments: “Although as part of my acceptance of nonjudicial punishment I submitted my request for a qualified resignation in lieu of administrative processing for separation, I do desire with all my heart to remain on active duty and to fulfill my obligated service and serve this great nation that has given us all so much.”

980917: From Commanding General, 2d Force Service Support Group, to Commandant of the Marine Corps, Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps (JAM), Report of Nonjudicial Punishment in the case of the Warrant Officer-1 E_ R. S_ (Applicant). CG’s comments: “In enclosure (9) Warrant Offier-1 S_ (Applicant) requests to be allowed to resign his warrant in lieu of processing for Administrative separation for cause, and to be separated with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge as a result of this qualified resignation. I recommend that Warrant Officer –1 S_ (Applicant) be required to show cause (Board of Inquiry) for determination of characterization of service.”

990101: DD Form 214: Applicant discharged this date by reason of resignation unacceptable conduct with a characterization of service of General (under honorable conditions).

Service Record was missing elements of the Summary of Service.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19990101 by reason of resignation unacceptable conduct (A and B) with a service characterization of general (under honorable conditions). 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 (C and D). The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (E).

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. A 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. On 19980804, the Applicant voluntarily submitted a qualified resignation of his warrant in the United States Marine Corps to the Secretary of the Navy in lieu of administrative processing for cause. The least favorable characterization of service allowed by a qualified resignation is General (Under Honorable Conditions). At the time that the Applicant submitted his request for resignation, he had agreed to accept Commanding General’s nonjudicial punishment for multiple violations of UCMJ Article 92 (dereliction of duty and violation of a lawful general regulation). Violations of UCMJ Article 92 are considered serious offenses, which is defined as any offense for which a punitive discharge is an authorized sentence under the UCMJ. On 19980831, the Applicant was the subject of nonjudicial punishment for violations of UCMJ Article 92. 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.

Despite a servicemember’s prior record of service, certain serious offenses, even though isolated, warrant separation from the naval service in order to maintain proper order and discipline. The Applicant’s service record is marred by award of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for multiple violations of UCMJ Article 92, thus substantiating the misconduct for which he was separated. The summary of service clearly documents that misconduct was the reason the Applicant was discharged. No other Narrative Reason for Separation could more clearly describe why the Applicant was discharged. Regulations limit the Board’s review to a determination on the propriety and equity of the discharge. In the Applicant’s case, the Board could discern no impropriety or inequity and therefore consider his discharge proper and equitable. Relief denied.

Since 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. An unfavorable “RE” code is, in itself, not a bar to reenlistment. A request for a waiver can be submitted during the processing of a formal application for reenlistment through a recruiter. Only the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) can make changes to reenlistment codes.

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 additional evidence related to this discharge. Representation at a personal appearance hearing is recommended but not required.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A Secretary of the Navy Instruction 1920.6B (ADMINISTRATIVE SEPARATION OF OFFICERS), effective 21 November 1983 until 12 December 1999 establishes policies, standards and procedures for the administrative separation of Navy and Marine Corps officers from the naval service in accordance with Title 10, United States Code and DoD Directive 1332.30 of 15 October 1981.

B. Chapter 4, Paragraph 4104 of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16E) effective 18 August 1995 until 31 August 2001, RETIREMENT OR RESIGNATION .

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 .

E. 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 .

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 | 2006_Navy | ND0600001

Original file (ND0600001.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ND06-00001 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20050920. Documentation In addition to the service and medical records, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant’s DD Form 214 (Member 1 and 4) Evaluation Report and Counseling Record, dtd April 5, 2005 E-mail from NAS PENSACOLA, dtd March 29, 2005 Thirteen pages from Applicant’s service record Four hundred and seventy-five pages from Applicant’s medical...
USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0500660

Original file (MD0500660.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

MD05-00660 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20050302. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: USMCR (DEP) 19970305 - 19970427 COG Active: USMC 19970428 - 20001003 HON Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 20001004 Date of Discharge: 20021113 Length of Service (years, months, days):Active: 02 01 10 (Does not exclude lost...
USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0600400

Original file (MD0600400.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

MD06-00400 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20060112. I request to upgrade my discharge from a General under Honorable Conditions to an Honorable Discharge based on the justification of my post service conduct to the present date. Initially the Applicant requested to appear before an administrative separation board but on 19921118 the Applicant forwarded a Conditional Waiver of Administrative Discharge Board to the GCMCA, offering to waive his...
USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0600352

Original file (MD0600352.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Findings : Guilty Charge III: Violation of Article 91: Specification: On or about 000228, was disrespectful toward Sergeant J_ H_, U.S. Marine Corps. Findings : Guilty Charge IV: Violation of Article 112a: Specification: Did, between 000123 and 000224, wrongfully use marijuana. Findings : Guilty Sentence: Confinement for 90 days, forfeiture of $630.00 per month for 3 months, Bad Conduct discharge.
NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00686

Original file (ND99-00686.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ND99-00686 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 990427, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to Honorable. The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. Specification 3: In that HN D_ L. E_ did, at the Naval Hospital Pensacola, Florida, on or about April 1995, commit an indecent assault upon K_ R. G_ a person not his wife, by sliding his hands up and down her leg, with the intent to gratify his lust or...
USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0600183

Original file (MD0600183.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Marine gun shot wound was through and through. Each one of the Applicant’s violations of Article 92 adjudicated on 20030620 and the Applicant’s violations of Articles 115 and 121 of the UCMJ individually made the Applicant eligible for separation by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense. As of this time, the Applicant has not provided any post-service documentation for the Board to consider.
NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600584

Original file (ND0600584.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

*Third set of Performance and Behavior marks extracted from supporting documents submitted by the Applicant (page 1 only) Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance):UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, authority: MILPERSMAN, Article 1910-140 (formerly 3630600). Pt stated that he has had suicidal thoughts since a kid but denied any plans or attempts. When the service of a member of the U.S. Navy has been honest and faithful, it is...
NAVY | DRB | 2004 Marine | MD04-01005

Original file (MD04-01005.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION Because of the inequitable and improper discharge under “Other than Honorable Condition” for the reason of misconduct, I have been denied or am not currently eligible for VA benefits, disability benefits, education benefits under the GI bill to which I contributed, and other military benefits accorded someone with an honorable discharge. The Applicant is reminded that he remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an...
USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0501067

Original file (MD0501067.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable and the Narrative Reason for Separation be changed to “medical issues.” The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: “DD 214 Citations Medical Records in service Mental Health established in Marines was being discharged with notable mental distress from Marines seen by psychiatrist at home. 040517: Commander, 2d Marine Aircraft...
USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0600603

Original file (MD0600603.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). She or no one else know’s about my discharge. He made a conscious decision to use illegal drugs and should be separated from the Marine Corps for his actions.

Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0501538

Similar Decisions