Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2007_Marine | MD0700720
Original file (MD0700720.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
ex-PVT, USMC
MD07-00720
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20070501   Characterization Received: BAD-CONDUCT DISCHARGE
Narrative Reason: AS A RESULT OF A COURT-MARTIAL (SPCM) OTHER    Authority: MARCORSEPMAN 1105

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

Decision

 By a vote of the Characterization shall .
By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall AS A RESULT OF A COURT-MARTIAL (SPCM) OTHER.

Date: 20 071205                   Location: Washington D.C.        Representation :

Discussion

Issue: 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 .

Issue 2 (Equity). With respect to a discharge adjudged by a court-martial case, the action of the NDRB is restricted to upgrades based on clemency (leniency). 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 . The Applicant’s case was considered under the pertinent standards of equity to determine if any factors in this particular case merited clemency. The re ason for discharge, convicted by special court-martial, is absolutely appropriate. However, t he NDRB also found the evidence of record did contain sufficient mitigating or extenuating factors to offset the seriousness of the offenses for which the discharge was awarded. After a thorough review of the Applicant’s record , issues submitted, and the standards of discipline, and post service accomplishments, the Board determined that some degree of clemency was warranted. While the Applicant’s request for an honorable discharge was considered inappropriate due to the nature of his in-service conduct, the board did find that an upgrade from Bad-Conduct Discharge to an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge to be 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. T he Board found that clemency was warranted.

Summary of Service

 Prior Service:
 Inactive: USMCR (DEP)    198912222 - 19900225
Period of Service Under Review:
 Date of Enlistment: 19900226      Years Contracted : 4 ; Extension:          Date of Discharge: 19950127
Length of Service: 04 Yrs 09 Mths 12 D ys        Lost Time: Days UA: Days Confined: 48
Education Level: 12       Age at Enlistment: 18     AFQT: 37          MOS: 0311      Highest Rank: LCPL
Proficiency/Conduct marks (# of occasions):      NOT FOUND IN RECORD
Awards and Decorations (per DD 214): Rifle , NDSM, JMUA, SASM, SSDR



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

 19920903:         Medical Record: Medical evaluation for drug or alcohol abuse.      
         Diagnosis: Alcohol dependence.      
         Recommendation: Level III treatment and enforced AA meetings.

19921023:        CMC Washington, DC message authorizing VA treatment in conjunction with discharge.      


Bad Conduct Discharge
Discharge Process

 Charge(s) and Specification(s): Article 107; 4 specifications, 121, 123; 2 specifications, 134.
Preferred: 19921021       Court-martial: 19921216   Findings: Guilty of Article(s) 121, 123; 2 specifications, 134      
Sentence: BCD; Conf 4 months ; RIR to E-1 ; FOP ($250) for (4 months)      CA action: 19930614
NC&PB Action: 19930916 Clemency: Restoration:                                    
Appellate Review Complete: 19940622       BCD ordered executed: 19950127       SSPCMCO No. 95-179
Applicant Discharged: 19950127


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 COURTS-MARTIAL , of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16D), effective 27 Jun 89 until 17 Aug 95.

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 (s) 121 and 123.


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, provided 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 granted 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.
Employment/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 | MD0700564

    Original file (MD0700564.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After a thorough review of the Applicant’s record, issues submitted, and the standards of discipline, the Board determined that clemency was not warranted. ” Additional Reviews : Subsequent to a document review, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application is received at the NDRB within 15 years from the date of discharge. Additionally, the Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities.

  • 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 | MD0700823

    Original file (MD0700823.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant also told the court, when asked his view of the military judge’s power to either discharge him or retain him in the Marine Corps, that he “would prefer to go home.” After a thorough review of the Applicant’s record, issues submitted, and post service accomplishments, the Board determined that discharge 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2007_Marine | MD0700240

    Original file (MD0700240.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Clemency. 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. If a former member has been discharged for more than 15 years, has already been granted a personal appearance hearing or has otherwise exhausted his opportunities before the NDRB, the Applicant may petition the...

  • USMC | DRB | 2007_Marine | MD0700070

    Original file (MD0700070.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, as approved, was appropriate for the offenses he committed.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. ...

  • USMC | DRB | 2007_Marine | MD0700120

    Original file (MD0700120.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. If a former member has been discharged for more than 15 years, has already been granted a personal appearance hearing or has otherwise exhausted his opportunities before the NDRB, the Applicant may petition the Board for...

  • USMC | DRB | 2007_Marine | MD0700625

    Original file (MD0700625.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. Reenlistment/RE-code : Since the NDRB has no...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700760

    Original file (ND0700760.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: USNR (DEP)19800627 - 19800728Active: 19800729 - 19860629 19860630 - 19910822 19910823 - 19941024 Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 19941025Years Contracted:; Extension: Date of Discharge:19960610Length of Service: 1 Yrs...

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0901432

    Original file (MD0901432.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant wishes for the board to grant clemency based on the harshness of the punishment considering his previous service record and the fact that he made restitution to the government. Without post-service documentary evidence, the Board determined clemency would be inappropriate.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entries, and discharge process, the Board found Therefore, the awarded characterization of...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0800744

    Original file (MD0800744.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    However, after a complete review of the entire record, including the evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board determined that the discharge upgrade to under other than honorable conditions is appropriate in light of the nature and seriousness of the Applicant’s misconduct, and that the evidence of post - service conduct was not sufficient to convince the Board that a higher upgrade was appropriate at this time. ” Additional Reviews : Subsequent to a document review, former members are...