Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0600476
Original file (MD0600476.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB)
 DISCHARGE REVIEW
DECISIONAL DOCUMENT
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

ex-Pvt, USMC
Docket No. MD06-00476

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20060210 . 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 2006120 7 . 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 by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.
The NDRB did note administrative error(s) on the original DD Form 214. Block 1 2c, Net Active Service this Period, should read: “01 10 17.” Block 28, Narrative Reason for Separation, should read: “MISCONDUCT.” The Commandant, Headquarters USMC, Quantico, VA, will be notified, recommending the DD Form 214 be corrected or reissued, as appropriate.





PART I

–ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Decisional Issues
Equity: Command Environment.
 Equity: Post Service.


Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Letter from Applicant, undated
 Applicant’s DD Form 214 (Service 2)
Letter of Reference from, D_ R. G_, Mayor, Town of Wartrace, dtd August 4, 2005 , unsigned
Letter from Applicant, undated
Resume (3 pgs)
 Letter from Applicant, dtd February 22, 2006
 Employment Reference ltr from M_ B_, undated
 Report of Psychological Evaluation from C_ A_, EdS, Licensed Psyc hological Examiner, dtd August 10 , 2005 (3 pgs)
 Letter of Reference from D_ R. G_, Mayor, Town of Wartrace, dtd February 20, 2006 , unsigned
Letter of Reference from D_ R. G_, Mayor, Town of Wartrace, dtd August 4, 2005 , unsigned
Confirmation of Psychological Evaluation from Tennessee Peace Officer Standards and Training Commission, dtd August 8, 2005
 Excerpts from Service Record Book (29 pgs)
 Letter from Applicant, dtd February 25, 2006 (2 pgs)
 Letter of Recommendation from B_ C. S_, Chief of Police, Wartrace, TN, dtd February 23, 2006

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: None
         Active: None
Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 19981203              Date of Discharge: 20010112

Length of Service (years, months, days):

 Active: 0 2 0 1 1 0 (Does not exclude lost time.)
         Inactive: None

 Time Lost During This Period (days):
         Unauthorized absence: 59 day s
         Confinement:              24 day s

Age at Entry: 1 9

Years Contracted: 4

Education Level: GED                                 AFQT: 35

Highest Rank: PFC                                    MOS: 3531

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Proficiency: 3 . 9 ( 5 )                       Conduct: 2.9 ( 6 )
Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, (as stated on the DD Form 214): None


Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance):
UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6210.3.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

000124:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Did on or about from 0700, 000112 to 0800, 000112 absent himself fro m his appointed place of duty.
          Award: Forfeiture of $251.00 pay per month for 1 month (suspended for 3 months), restriction and extra duty for 7 days. Not appealed.
000601:  Counseling: Advised of deficiencies in performance and conduct (Art 86: SNM failed to be at his appointed place of duty, Golf Battery Gun Park at 1000, on 000519), necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.
0006 02 :  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: SNM absent himself fro m his appointed place of duty on or about 1000, 000519.
          Award: Forfeiture of $263.00 pay per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duty for 14 days. Not appealed.

 00062 6 :  App licant to unauthorized absence at 0600 .

000801:  Applicant declared deserter.

000824:  Applicant from unauthorized absence.
00 1122 :  Summary Court-Martial.
         Charge I : violation of the UCMJ, Article 86 :
          Specification: In that Private First Class R_ B. S_ (Applicant), U.S. Marine Corps, on active duty, did, on or about 000622, without authority, absent himself from his unit, to wit: Golf Battery, 2d Battalion, 11 th Marines, 1 st Marine Division, located at Camp Pendleton, CA, and did remain so absent un til on or about 000824.
          Charge II: violation of the UCMJ, Article 87:
         Specification: In that Private First Class R_ B. S_ (Applicant), U.S. Marine Corps, on active duty, did, at an unknown location, on or about 000705, through design miss the movement of Golf Battery, 2d Battalion, 11 th Marines, 1 st Marine Division, with which he was required in the course of duty to move.
         Finding: to Charges I and II, and the specifications thereunder, guilty.
          Sentence: Forfeiture of $670.00 pay per month for 1 month, reduced to E-1, confinement for 30 days.
         CA action 001205: Approved and ordered executed.
001122:  Applicant found fit for confinement.

001122:  To confinement . [Extracted from DD Form 214]
00121 6 :  From confinement . [Extracted from DD Form 214]

001218:  Counseling: Advised of being processed for administrative separation due to your documented patter n of misconduct.
001218 :  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of a pattern of misconduct . The factual basis for this recommendation was repeated violations of the UCMJ, despite opportunit ies to correct d eficiencies. Applicant informed the least favorable character of service possible was as under other than honorable conditions.

001218 :  Applicant advised of rights and having consulted with counsel, elected to waive all rights except the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation.

001219 :  Commanding Officer, 2d Battalion, 11 th Marines , recommended Applicant’s under other than honorable conditions discharge by reason of pattern of misconduct . The factual basis for this recommendation was Private S_’s (Applicant) history of repeated violations of the UCMJ. Commanding Officer’s comments: “ During his enlistment, Private S_ has been formally counseled for multiple unauthorized absences, non-recommended for promotion to Lance Corporal on seven occasions, received nonjudicial punishment twice due to unauthorized absence and finally, was court-martialed after his return from desertion status (a desertion link to missing movement to deploy with his unit) . ”

001228:          SJA found the case sufficient in law and fact.

 010103 :  GCMCA, Commanding General, 1 st Marine Division , directed the Applicant's under other than honorable conditions discharge by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.

010112:  Applicant found physically qualified for separation.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20010112 by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct ( A and B) with a service characterization of under other than 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 (C and D).

When a Marine’s service has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service as honorable. 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 retention warning and nonjudicial punishment proceedings for violations of Article 86 of the UCMJ. The Applicant was also convicted at summary court-martial for violations of Articles 86 and 87 of the UCMJ. Violation of Article 86, for unauthorized absence of more than 30 days, and violation of Article 87 are serious offenses. 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 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 problems in the Marine Corps can be attributed to “an issue [he] had with a Marine superior.” While he may feel that this situation was the underlying cause of his misconduct, the record clearly reflects his willful misconduct and demonstrated he was unfit for further service. Neither the evidence of record nor the documentation provided by the Applicant show that the Applicant was either not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions. Additionally, the Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment or educational opportunities. Relief denied.

The Applicant implies that his discharge should be changed because of his post-service conduct. 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 sufficient post-service documentation to consider mitigating the misconduct that resulted in the characterization of discharge. 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 Jan 97 until 31 Aug 01.

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 86, unauthorize d absence for more than 30 days, or Article 87, missing movement .
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 Instruction 1332.28, you may submit a complaint in accordance with Enclosure (5) of that Instruction . You should read Enclosure (5) of the Instruction 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 Instruction 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 | 2005_Marine | MD0500704

    Original file (MD0500704.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    021106: Counseling: Advised of deficiencies in performance and conduct (Violation Article 86: Unauthorized absence (UA). The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (D).The Applicant requests a discharge characterization upgrade to General (Under Honorable Conditions) and a change in “RE” code in order to reenter service. Notwithstanding, the Applicant is reminded that his seven months of service was marred by nonjudicial punishment proceedings for two periods of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500909

    Original file (ND0500909.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In my case I felt the same way about the Chiefs in my command and I was only accused of a total of six hours unauthorized absence. When the service of a member of the U.S. Navy has met the standard of acceptable conduct and performance, it is appropriate to characterize that service as honorable. 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

  • 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.

  • USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0501087

    Original file (MD0501087.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). st Radio Battalion, Fleet Marine Force Pacific, recommended Applicant’s discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.950512: Applicant submitted statement, “APPEAL OF CHARACTERIZATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE SEPARATION” to Commanding General, 1 You may view DoD Directive 1332.28 and other...

  • USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0501416

    Original file (MD0501416.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD05-01416 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20050823. I counseled Mr. B_ before he entered active duty with the United States Marine Corps in 1995. Mr. B_ told me that Captain G_ advised him to plead guilty and take a reduced sentence and request discharge from the Marine Corps.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600793

    Original file (ND0600793.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance):GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT (DRUG ABUSE), authority: MILPERSMAN, Article 1910-146, formerly 3630620. The Applicant requests upgrade in order to obtain educational benefits and because he needs a better job to “support” his “family.” The Veterans Administration determines...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00361

    Original file (ND00-00361.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND00-00361 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 000202, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to General/under Honorable conditions. The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. 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:Naval Council of Personnel Boards Attn: Naval Discharge Review Board 720...

  • USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0600998

    Original file (MD0600998.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    At the time of the hearing, the Applicant’s representatives submitted an “Applicants Statement of Issues” form, wherein the Applicant requested that the Discharge Characterization of Service be changed to General (Under Honorable Conditions). On 20040823 the Applicant’s counsel submitted a request for a continuance for the Applicant’s administrative separation board. In a letter dated 20040825, the separation authority notified the Applicant’s attorney’s, that the request for continuance...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600733

    Original file (ND0600733.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 20050324 by reason of homosexuality - homosexual admission with a service characterization of general (under honorable conditions) (A). PART IV - INFORMATION FOR THE APPLICANT If you believe that the decision in your case is unclear, not responsive to the issues...

  • USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0501428

    Original file (MD0501428.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD05-01428 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20050824. 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 Applicant provided two letters of recommendation, a community college diploma and a certificate of training as documentation of...