Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0600875
Original file (MD0600875.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. MD06-00875

Applicant ’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20060613 . The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions) . 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 070322 . After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board determined that clemency was not warranted and that the characterization of discharge was appropriate. T he Board’s vote was unanimous that the character of the discharge shall not change. The discharge shall remain as a bad conduct discharge by reason of court-marital.
The NDRB did note administrative error(s) on the original DD Form 214. Block 28, Narrative Reason for Separation, should read: “ COURT-MARTIAL .” 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: Misconduct mitigated by family problems.
         Misconduct mitigated by post-service conduct.

Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Applicant ’s DD Form 214
 Applicant ’s statement, dated April 26, 2006

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USMCR (DEP)    19900531 - 19910528       COG
         Active: None
Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 19910529              Date of Discharge: 19950921

Length of Service (years, months, days):

 Active: 04 03 23 (Does not exclude lost time.)
         Inactive: None

 Time Lost During This Period (days):
         Unauthorized absence: 29 2 day s
         Confinement:              Unknown (at least 17)

Age at Entry: 18
Years Contracted: 4
Education Level: 1 2                                  AFQT: 38

Highest Rank: LCpl                                   MOS: 0311

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Proficiency: 3.9 (9 )                                Conduct: 3.2 ( 11 )
Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, (as stated on the DD Form 214): M16 Expert Rifle . Nat ional Defense Service Medal . Humanitarian Service Medal



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

 BAD CONDUCT DISCHARGE/COURT-MARTIAL, authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 1105.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

940119:  Applicant to unauthorized absence at 0530.

 940218:  Applicant from unauthorized absence at 2250 ( 3 1 days/surrendered).
940222:  Applicant to confinement.

940228:  Applicant released from confinement (7 days).

 940303 :  Counseling: Advised of deficiencies in performance and conduct ( Frequent involvement with military/civilian authorities and minor incidents prejudicial to good order and discipline .), necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued. Applicant refused to acknowledge entry.

94 0 308:  Commanding Officer, 2 nd Battalion, 8 th Marines, requests legal support for special courts-martial for allegations of violations of Article 86 (UA from 940119 to 940218) and 87 (missing movement to CAX on 920206) of the UCMJ.
940309 :  Applicant to unauthorized absence at 0530.

941125:  Applicant from unauthorized absence at 1745 ( 26 1 days/apprehended).
94112 6 :  Applicant to pretrial confinement.
941205 :  Special Court Martial
         Charge: violation of the UCMJ, Article 86:
         Specification: On or about 940309, absent himself f ro m his unit and did remain so absent until on or about 941125. Plea : Guilty. Findings : Guilty.
         Sentence: Confinement for 45 days , forfeiture of $ 550.00 per month for 3 month s , reduction to E-1, Bad Conduct discharge.
          CA 950201 : T he sentence approved and ordered executed, except for bad conduct discharge , but the execution of that part of the sentence extending to confinement in excess of 28 days suspended for a period of 12 months .
        
950619 :  NMCCCA: Affirmed findings and sentence.

950829 :  Appellate review complete.

 950921 :  SSPCMO: Article 71c, UCMJ, having been complied with, Bad Conduct discharge ordered executed.

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 19950921 with a bad conduct discharge which was the sentence adjudged by a properly convened special court-martial. That sentence was subsequently approved by both the convening and appellate review authorities (A and B). After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the Applicant’s issues were insufficient to merit clemency (C).

In response to the Applicant’s issues, relevant and material facts stated in a court-martial specification are presumed by the NDRB to be established facts. With respect to a discharge adjudged by a court-martial case, the action of the NDRB is restricted to upgrades based on clemency. Clemency is an act of leniency that reduces the severity of the punishment imposed. After a thorough review of the Applicant’s record, issues submitted, and post service accomplishments claimed, 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. Relief denied.

The following is provided for the edification of the Applicant. 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 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. 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. Paragraph 1105, DISCHARGE ADJUDGED BY SENTENCE OF COURT-MARTIAL , of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16E), effective 950818 until 010831.

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, absence without leave for more than 30 days.

C. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part II, Para 205(2), Jurisdictional Limitations Authority for Review of Discharges .



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 | 2003_Marine | MD03-00596

    Original file (MD03-00596.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD03-00596 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030221. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION Issues, as stated Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:“At the time of my discharge I was young and naïve and I made a terrible mistake.

  • USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-00099

    Original file (MD03-00099.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    (Equity Issue) Pursuant to 10 USC 874 (b) (UCMJ, Article 74) and in accordance with SECNAVINST 5420.174C, enclosure (1), paragraphs 2.24 and 9.3, this former member requests the Board’s clemency relief with up-grade of his characterization of service on the basis of his post-service conduct. 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0500820

    Original file (MD0500820.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The discharge shall remain as a bad conduct discharge by reason of court-marital. Plea: G. Finding: G. Sentence: Confinement for a period of four months, forfeiture of $583.00 pay per month for four months, reduction to E-1, and a bad conduct discharge. 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, unauthorized absence for more than...

  • USMC | DRB | 2000_Marine | MD00-00465

    Original file (MD00-00465.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Charge I: violation of the UCMJ, Article 91 (2 Specifications): Disobeying a lawful order from an NCO on 860817. 870817: SSPCMO: Article 71c, UCMJ, having been complied with, Bad Conduct discharge ordered executed. 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0600628

    Original file (MD0600628.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The discharge shall remain as a bad conduct discharge by reason of court-marital. 950420: Applicant discharged. 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

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004 Marine | MD04-01293

    Original file (MD04-01293.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION I had to physically be in the state for 6 to 12 months to handle the legal problems. (see attachment #16 pages 1 thru 3) .” Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered: Applicant’s DD Form 214 Thirteen pages from Applicant’s service record Twelve pages from Applicant’s military pay record Letter from Applicant to Senator H_ Four letters from Senator...

  • USMC | DRB | 2001_Marine | MD01-00921

    Original file (MD01-00921.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    (Equity Issue) Pursuant to 10 USC 874 (b) (UCMJ, Article 74) and in accordance with SECNAVINST 5420.174C, enclosure (1), paragraphs 2.24 and 9.3, this former member requests the Board’s clemency relief with up-grade of his characterization of service to General (Under Honorable Conditions) on the basis of his post-service conduct. Sentence: Confinement for 75 days, reduction to E-1, and a bad conduct discharge. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501512

    Original file (ND0501512.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:DD Form 149 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: 19870924 Date of Discharge: 20010205 Length of Service (years, months, days):Active: 13 04 12 (Does not exclude lost time.) Sentence: Confinement for 65 days, and to be discharge...

  • USMC | DRB | 2001_Marine | MD01-00075

    Original file (MD01-00075.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    960206: SSPCMO: Article 71c, UCMJ, having been complied with, Bad Conduct discharge ordered executed. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 960208 with a bad conduct discharge which was the sentence adjudged by a properly constituted special court martial that was determined to be legal and proper, affirmed in the legal chain of review and executed (A and B). The NDRB is authorized to consider outstanding post-service...

  • USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0500330

    Original file (MD0500330.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Not appealed.890607: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Specification: In that SNM, having knowledge of a lawful order, failed to obey same by wrongfully driving on an unauthorized road with a government vehicle. 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...