Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2007_Marine | MD0700304
Original file (MD0700304.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
ex-, USMC
MD07-00304
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20070105   Characterization Received:
Narrative Reason: Misconduct-Pattern of misconduct                Authority: MARCORSEPMAN 6210.3

 Applicant’s Request:      Characterization change to:
                           Narrative Reason change to:
Applicant’s Issues:       1. Desire health benefits

Decision

 By a vote of the Characterization shall .     
By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall MISCONDUCT - PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT.

Date: 20 0702 07            Washington D.C.   Representative: American Legion

Discussion

 Issue 1: either which the Board cannot form the basis of relief for the Applicant, or the Board does not have the authority to grant the relief for which the Applicant petitioned. The Applicant is directed to the Addendum regarding .

A general (under honorable conditions) discharge is warranted when the quality of the member’s service has been honest and faithful but significant negative aspects of the member’s conduct or performance of duty outweighed the positive aspects of the member’s service record. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is warranted when a member engages in conduct involving one or more acts or omissions that constitute a significant departure from the conduct expected of members of the naval service. The Applicant’s service was marred by 2 retention warnings, 3 nonjudicial punishments and a summary court-martial for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Articles 86, 91, 92 and 134. Violations of Articles 91, 92 and 134 are considered serious offenses for which a punitive discharge is authorized upon conviction at special or general court-martial. 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 and falls far short of that required for an upgrade of his characterization of service.

In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of Government affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the Applicant. After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Medical and Service Record Entries , Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, t he Board found that

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
 Inactive: USMCR (DEP)     19881021 - 19890625              Active:
Period of Service Under Review:
 Date of Enlistment: 19890626               Years Contracted :                 Date of Discharge: 19920609
Length of Service : 02 Yrs 11 Mths 14 D ys                   Lost Time : Days UA: Days Confine d :
Education Level:         Age at Enlistment:       AFQT: 32          MOS: 0311 Highest Rank:
Proficiency/Conduct marks (# of occasions):      4.0 ( 7 ) / 3.4 ( 7 )     Fitness reports :
Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214): RIFLE MARKSMAN BADGE, SEA SERVICE DEPLOYMENT RIBBON (2D AWARD), NATIONAL DEFENSE SERVICE MEDAL, SOUTHWEST ASIA SERVICE MEDAL (W/1*), MARINE CORPS EXPEDITIONARY MEDAL, JOINT MERITORIOUS UNIT AWARD

Medical/Service Record Entries Related to Characterization of Service or Basis for Discharge

 19900726:        NJP -- Viol UCMJ Art. 86 - UA from 0731, 19000713 to 1600, 19000725.
         Awarded - FOP ($ 189.00 ) for ( 1 month); CCU for (7 days) .

19910828:        Medical Record: Reason for visit: Rash on abdomen and back for 8 days, began after returning from field training in Tunisia. Rash is irritating and itching extremely.
         Diagnosis: Groupings of rashes approx 1” in length on abdomen and lower back. Scabies.
          Recommendation: (Illegible) cream applied, wash off 12 hours. Rtn if problems persist.

19910610:        MARCORSEPMAN 6105 counseling for financial irresponsibility, specifically bounced checks.

19910813:        NJP -- Viol UCMJ Art. 86 ( 3 specs) - (1) UA 0701, 19910528-1540, 19910604, (2-3) Fail to go at the time prescribed to morning formation, Art 134 (3 specs)- (1) Worthless check, $100.00 19910128, (2) Worthless check $246.00 19910301 , (3) Worthless check s, $100.00 and $40.00 in May 1991.
         Awarded - FOP ($ 200.00 ) for ( 2 months); RIR ( E-2 ); Confined on bread and water (3 days) , susp 6 months.

19911029:        MARCORSEPMAN 6105 counseling for two nonjudicial punishments.

19911130:        Confinement on bread and water awarded and suspended at NJP of 19910813 vacated this date .

 19911030 :        NJP -- Viol UCMJ Art. 92 - A shore at Thessalonika, Greece while on Liberty Risk Program , 19911117 .
          Awarded - FOP ($ 197.00 ) for ( 1 month) , susp 6 months ; Restr for ( 14 days) , susp 6 months ; Extra duties ( 14 days).

19920304 :        SCM -- Viol UCMJ Art. 86 (2 specs) - (1) UA 19911223-19911230, (2) UA 19920129-19920205, Art 91 - Treated Cpl with contempt within his hearing .
         Awarded - RIR ( E-1 ); Confinement (30 days). CA action: 19920306: Approved and ordered executed.

19920305:        Applicant to confinement.

19920328:        Applicant from confinement (24 days).

Discharge Process

 Date Notified:   19920427
Basis for Discharge:      DUE TO
Least Favorable Characterization:       
Commanding Officer’s Intended Recommendation:   

Date Applicant Responded to Notification:                  19920427
Rights Elected at Notification:
         Consult with Counsel                      
         Obtain Copies of Documents               
         Submit Statement(s) (date)                        
         Administrative Board                      

Commanding Officer Recommendation (date):        ( 19920427 )
 SJA review (date):       ( 19920526 )
Separation Authority (date):     CG, 2D MARINE DIVISION ( 19920528 )
 Basis for discharge directed:   DUE TO
Characterization directed:     
Date Applicant Discharged:       19920609

Types of Documents Submitted by Applicant and Considered By Board

 Related to Military Service:      Service and/or Medical Record:            Other Records:

Related to Post-Service Period:         
         Employment:                        Finances:                          Education:               
         Health/Medical Records:                   Substance Abuse:                           Criminal Records:       
         Family/Personal Status:                   Community Service:                References:              
        
Additional Statements From Applicant:    From Representative:
Other Documentation (Describe) Copy of DD Form 149; Copy of FL Identification card; VA Form 10-10EZ

Pertinent Regulation/Law

 A. Paragraph 6210, Misconduct , of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16D), effective
27 June 1989 until 17 August 1995.

 B. 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 V, Para 502, Propriety and Para 503, Equity .

C. 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, Articles 91, 92 and 134 .



ADDENDUM: Information for the Applicant

 Complaint Procedures : 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 to the Joint Service Review Activity, OUSD (P&R) PI-LP, The Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-4000 . 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 . ”

Additional Reviews : Subsequent to a document review, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provi ded the 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. If a former member has been discharged for more than 15 years , has already been grante d a personal appearance hearing or has otherwise exhausted his opportunities before the NDRB, the Applicant may petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR), 2 Navy Annex, Washington, DC 20370-5100 for further review.

 Service Benefits: The Veterans Administration determines eligibility for post-service benefits, not the Naval Discharge Review Board. There is no requirement or law that grants recharacterization solely on the issue of obtaining Veterans' benefits and this issue does not serve to provide a foundation upon which the Board can grant relief.
Employmen t / Educational Opportunities : The Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment or educational opportunities. Regulations limit the Board’s review to a determination of the propriety and equity of the discharge.

Reenlistment/RE-code: Since the NDRB has no jurisdiction over reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Navy, Marine Corps, or any other of the Armed Forces, the NDRB is not authorized to change a reenlistment code. Only the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) can make changes to reenlistment codes. Additionally, the Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities. 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.
Medical Conditions and Misconduct : DoD disability regulations do not preclude a disciplinary separation. Appropriate regulations stipulate that separations for misconduct take precedence over potential separations for other reasons. Whenever a member is being processed through the Physical Evaluation Board, and subsequently is processed for an administrative involuntary separation for misconduct, the disability evaluation is suspended. The Physical Evaluation Board case remains in suspense pending the outcome of the non-disability proceedings. If the action includes either a punitive or administrative discharge for misconduct, the medical board report is filed in the member’s terminated health record. Additionally, the NDRB does not have the authority to change a narrative reason for separation to one indicating a medical disability or “PTSD . ” Only the Board for Correction of Naval Records can grant this type of narrative reason change.

Automatic Upgrades - 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 may be provided to the Board include proof of educational pursuits, verifiable employment records, documentation of community service, credible evidence of a substance free lifestyle and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities.

Issues Concerning Bad-Conduct Discharges (BCD ) – Because relevant and material facts stated in a court-martial specification are presumed by the NDRB to be established facts, issues relating to the Applicant’s innocence of charges for which he was found guilty cannot form a basis for relief. With respect to a discharge adjudged by a court-martial, 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.

Board Membership: 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 | 2007_Navy | ND0700731

    Original file (ND0700731.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Medical and Service Record Entries, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found that Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214 The NDRB did note administrative error(s) on the original DD Form 214: “PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT” The NDRB will recommend to the Commander, Navy Personnel Command, that the DD 214 be corrected as appropriate. Summary of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700367

    Original file (ND0700367.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant’s service was marred by 2 retention warnings, 6 nonjudicial punishment proceedings for violations of Articles 86 (unauthorized absence), 90 (willfully disobeying a superior commissioned officer), 91 (insubordinate conduct towards a master chief petty officer), 92 (failure to obey written regulation), 95 (resistance), 112 (drunk on duty), 112a (wrongful use of a controlled substance) and 134 (unlawful entry) of the UCMJ. The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis...

  • USMC | DRB | 2007_Marine | MD0700293

    Original file (MD0700293.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Medical and Service Record Entries, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found that...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700784

    Original file (ND0700784.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 19890607 Years Contracted: ; Extension: Date of Discharge: 19930218 Length of Service: 03 Yrs 08 Mths 12 Dys Lost Time: Days UA: 48 Days Confined: 25 Education Level: Age at Enlistment: AFQT: 59 Highest Rank/Rate: STGSN Evaluation marks (# of occasions): Performance: 3.2(4) Behavior: 3.3(4) OTA: 3.40 (4.0 scale) Awards and Decorations (per DD 214): NDSM Medical/Service Record Entries Related to Characterization of Service or Basis for...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700785

    Original file (ND0700785.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Medical and Service Record Entries, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found that Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214 The NDRB did note administrative error(s) on the original DD Form 214: “ PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT ” The NDRB will recommend to the Commander, Navy Personnel Command, that the DD 214 be corrected as appropriate. Summary of...

  • USMC | DRB | 2007_Marine | MD0701018

    Original file (MD0701018.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Certain serious offenses, even though isolated, warrant separation from the Naval service in order to maintain proper order and discipline.The Applicant’s service was marred by three retention warnings and four nonjudicial punishments (NJPs) for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), Article 92 (Failure to obey an order), Article 134 (Soliciting another to commit an offense), and Article 134 (Altering a base pass). Medical/Service Record Entries Related to...

  • USMC | DRB | 2007_Marine | MD0700570

    Original file (MD0700570.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to:Narrative Reason change to: Applicant’s Issues:None submitted. After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Medical and Service Record Entries, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found that Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive: USMCR (DEP)19930312 - 19940123Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 19940124Years Contracted:; Extension:...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700780

    Original file (ND0700780.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After a complete review of the entire record, including the evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board determined that the discharge was appropriate and that the evidence of post-service conduct was found not to mitigate the conduct which precipitated the discharge. After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Medical and Service Record Entries, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found that Summary of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700214

    Original file (ND0700214.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant’s service was marred by four nonjudicial punishments and two retention warning for violations of UCMJ Articles 86 (unauthorized absence, 6 specifications), 87 (missing movement), 90 (willfully disobeying a superior commissioned officer), 91 (insubordinate conduct, 2 specifications), 92 (failure to obey, 3 specifications), 107 (false official statements), 111 (drunk operation of a motor vehicle), 112 (drunk on watch), and 134 (disorderly conduct and communicating a threat). ...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700211

    Original file (ND0700211.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    There is no evidence in the record, nor has the Applicant produced any evidence, to support the contention that her command did not follow proper procedures.The Applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity in this case. Recommendation on Separation: BY Recommendation on Characterization: BY Commanding Officer Recommendation (date): (19970925) Separation Authority (date): COMCRUDESGRU THREE (19971014)Reason for discharge directed: - Characterization...