Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2007_Marine | MD0700685
Original file (MD0700685.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
ex-PVT, USMC
MD07-00685    
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20040327   Characterization Received: BAD-CONDUCT DISCHARGE
Narrative Reason: COURT-MARTIAL                   Authority: MARCORSEPMAN 1105

 Applicant’s Request:      Characterization change to:
                           Narrative Reason change to:
Applicant’s Issues:       1. Clemency.

Decision

 By a vote of the Characterization shall BAD CONDUCT DISCHARGE .
 By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall COURT-MARTIAL.      

Date: 20 071129 Location: Washington D.C.         Representation :

Discussion

Issue 1 (Equity). In response to the Applicant’s clemency request, 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. The Applicant’s case was considered under the pertinent standards of equity to determine if any factors in this particular case merited clemency. The NDRB found the evidence of record did not contain sufficient mitigating or extenuating factors to offset the seriousness of the offense for which the discharge was awarded. In addition, the reason for discharge, convicted by special court-martial, is most appropriate. 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) 20000829 - 20001015           
Period of Service Under Review:
 Date of Enlistment: 20001016      Years Contracted : 4 ; Extension:          Date of Discharge: 20060613      
Length of Service : 05 Yrs 07 Mths 28 D ys         Lost Time : Days UA: 231 Days Confine d : 59
Education Level: 12       Age at Enlistment: 1 9     AFQT: 63          MOS: 7700      Highest Rank: LCPL
Proficiency/Conduct marks (# of occasions):      3.6 / 3.3        
Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214): NDSM, RIFLE EXPERT BADGE.


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

 20010827 :        NJP -- Viol UCMJ Art. 86 – 20010528 – 20010621.
         Awarded - FOP ($ 272 ) for ( 1 month ) suspended for 6 months ; Restr for ( 14 days); Extra duties (# days).
20020703 :        NJP -- Viol UCMJ Art. 86 – 20020506 – 20020617.
         Awarded - FOP ($ 289 ) ; Restr for ( 14 days); Extra duties ( 14 days).

20030123 :        NJP -- Viol UCMJ Art. 86 – 20021018 – 20021126 (apprehended) .
         Awarded - FOP ($ 645 ) for (2 Months); RIR (E- 1 ); Restr for ( 60 days); all suspended for 6 months.

20020129 :        Medical Record: Medical Board report. Craniotomy performed on 20011017.      
         Diagnosis: Status post pineocytoma surgically excised.      
         Recommendation: Not qualified for military service.


Bad Conduct Discharge
Discharge Process

 Charge(s) and Specification(s): Article 86, 20030609 – 20031111 (apprehended) .
Preferred: 20031119       Court-martial: 20040109   Findings: Guilty of Article 86.      
Sentence: BCD; Conf 59 days              CA action: 20041209
NC&PB Action: NONE                        
Appellate Review Complete: 20060328       BCD ordered executed: 20060606       SSPCMCO No. 204-04      
Applicant Discharged: 20060613


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)      


Pertinent Regulation/Law

 A. Paragraph 1105, DISCHARGE ADJUDGED BY SENTENCE OF COURT-MARTIAL , of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16F), effective 01 September 2001 until Present.

B. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part IV , Para 403m(7)(a), Presumption Concerning Court-Martial Specifications .

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, Article 86 , over 30 days.

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

  • USMC | DRB | 2007_Marine | MD0700453

    Original file (MD0700453.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 offense that 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 Summary...

  • 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2007_Marine | MD0700818

    Original file (MD0700818.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, Court-Martial proceedings, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found that clemency was not warranted and that the sentence awarded the Applicant at his court-martial was appropriate for the offensesthat he committed. 97-1606Applicant Discharged: 19971023 Types of Documents Submitted by Applicant and Considered By BoardRelated...

  • USMC | DRB | 2007_Marine | MD0701118

    Original file (MD0701118.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After a thorough review of the Applicant’s record, issues submitted, the standards of discipline, post service accomplishments, and time passed since the BCD, the Board determined that some degree of clemency was warranted. 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 ServicePrior Service: Inactive: USMCR...

  • USMC | DRB | 2007_Marine | MD0700326

    Original file (MD0700326.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 Summary of...

  • USMC | DRB | 2007_Marine | MD0700688

    Original file (MD0700688.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to:Narrative Reason change to: Applicant’s Issues:1. After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Medical and Service Record Entries, Court-Martial proceedings, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found that clemency was not warranted and that the sentence awarded the Applicant at his court-martial was appropriate for the offensesthat he committed. ” Additional...

  • USMC | DRB | 2007_Marine | MD0700377

    Original file (MD0700377.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 Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive: USMCR (DEP) 19920629 - 19920803 Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 19920804Years Contracted:4; Extension: Date of Discharge: 19951214Length of Service: 03 Yrs 01Mths 28 DysLost Time:Days UA: NONE Days Confined:...

  • USMC | DRB | 2007_Marine | MD0700510

    Original file (MD0700510.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After a thorough review of the Applicant’s record, issues submitted, and the standards of discipline, the Board determined that some degree of clemency was warranted. Preferred: 19921207Court-martial: 19930317 Findings: Guilty of Article(s) 128, Assault with a means to likely produce grievous bodily harm, 1 specification and 92, Violate a lawful general order, 1 specification Sentence: BCD; Conf for 60 days; RIR to E-1; FOP ($400) for (2 months) CA action: 19930318 NC&PB Action: 19930715...

  • USMC | DRB | 2007_Marine | MD0700264

    Original file (MD0700264.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After a thorough review of the Applicant’s record, issues submitted, post service, and the standards of discipline, the Board determined that clemency was not warranted. 99-483 Applicant Discharged: 19990413 Types of Documents Submitted by Applicant and Considered By BoardRelated 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2007_Marine | MD0700400

    Original file (MD0700400.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Discussion Issue 1 (Clemency). After a thorough review of the Applicant’s record, issues submitted, and post service accomplishments, the Board determined t that the sentence awarded the Applicant at his court-martial was appropriate for the offenses he committed and that clemency was not warranted.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...