Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2007_Marine | MD0700795
Original file (MD0700795.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
ex-, USMC
MD07-00795
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20070516   Characterization Received:
Narrative Reason: MISCONDUCT     Authority: MARCORSEPMAN 6210.3

 Applicant’s Request:      Characterization change to:
                           Narrative Reason change to:
Applicant’s Issues:       1. Characterization not warranted by overall service

Decision

 By a vote of the Characterization shall .
 By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall MISCONDUCT.

Date: 20 07121 2             Location: Washington D.C.         Representation :

Discussion

Issue 1 ( ). 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 4 retention warnings, 3 nonjudicial punishments for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), Article 86, and 2 summary courts-martial for violations of the UCMJ, Article 121. Violations of Article 121 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)     19930528 - 19930811              Active:         
Period of Service Under Review:
 Date of Enlistment: 19930812      Years Contracted : ; Extension:   Date of Discharge: 19961107
Length of Service : 03 Yrs 02 Mths 26 D ys          Lost Time : Days UA: Days Confine d :
Education Level:         Age at Enlistment:       AFQT: 88          MOS: 2515 Highest Rank:
Proficiency/Conduct marks (# of occasions):      3.8 ( 9 ) / 3.6 ( 9 )     Fitness reports :
Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214): Rifle , NDSM, SSDR, LoA

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

 19941007 :        MARCORSEPMAN 6105 counseling for failure to maintain BEQ clean in accordance with regulations .

 19950326:        MARCORSEPMAN 6105 counseling for conduct unbecoming and prejudicial to good order and discipline .

 19950411:        NJP -- Viol UCMJ Art. 86 – Failure to go to formation on 19950330.
         Awarded - FOP ($232.00) for (1 months); Restr for (7 days), susp 3 months; Extra duties (7 days).

 199 50411 :        MARCORSEPMAN 6105 counseling for several UAs due to oversleeping .

 19950531:        NJP -- Viol UCMJ Art. 86 – Failure to go to Battalion hike on 19950518.
         Awarded - FOP ($478.00) for (1 months); RIR (E-2); Restr for (45 days); Extra duties (45 days).

 19950531:        MARCORSEPMAN 6105 counseling for UA.

 19951010:        NJP -- Viol UCMJ Art. 86 (3 specs) – Failure to go 19950908 (2x) and 19950909; Art 91 – Disobeyed Sgt by failing to have proper uniforms prepared.
         Awarded - FOP ($478.00) for (2 months); RIR (E-1), susp 6 months; CCU for (30 days).

 19960206 :        SCM -- Viol UCMJ Art. 121 (3 specs) – 19950717 steal military property @$538 (flak jacket, watch cap, pair black glove shells, green blanket), 19951015 steal 4 panties from LCpl M_, and 19951022 steal 7 panties and 6 bras from LCpl S_ and 5 panties and 3 bras from LCpl R_ .
          Awarded - FOP ( $ 569 .00 ) for ( 1 months); RIR ( E-1 ); Confinement ( 30 days).
          CA action 19960226: Approved, except FIP susp 6 months.
19960206:        To confinement.

19960301:        From confinement.
19960722:        SCM -- Viol UCMJ Art. 121 (5 specs) – steal on different occasions 4 pairs female undergarments and dress, 3 pairs female undergarments, 5 pairs female undergarments, 2 female bathing suits and dress blue skirt, 6 pairs female undergarments, and 7 pairs female undergarments.
         Awarded - FOP ( $580.00 ) for (1 months); Confinement (30 days).
         CA action 19960226: Approved .

19960722:        To confinement.
19960815:        From confinement.
Discharge Process

 Date Notified:   19960916
Basis for Discharge:      DUE TO
Least Favorable Characterization:       
Commanding Officer’s Intended Recommendation:   

Date Applicant Responded to Notification:                  19960916
Rights Elected at Notification:
         Consult with Counsel                      
         Obtain Copies of Documents               
         Submit Statement(s) (date)                        
         Administrative Board                      

Commanding Officer Recommendation (date):        ( 19960916 )
SJA review (date):       ( 19961001 )
Separation Authority (date):     CG, II MEF ( 19961021 )
Basis for discharge directed:   DUE TO:
Characterization directed:     
Date Applicant Discharged:       19961107

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 6210, MISCONDUCT, of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16E), effective 18 Aug 95 until 30 Jan 97.

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, Article 121, Larceny .

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 | MD0700155

    Original file (MD0700155.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board determined that the documentation provided by the Applicant did not mitigate the misconduct that resulted in the characterization of discharge. ” 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. With respect to a discharge adjudged by a court-martial, the action of the NDRB is restricted to upgrades based on clemency.

  • USMC | DRB | 2007_Marine | MD0700657

    Original file (MD0700657.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 ServicePrior Service: Inactive: USMCR (DEP)19960221 - 19960225Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 19960226Years Contracted:; Extension: Date of Discharge:19970213Length of Service: 00 Yrs 11Mths18 DysLost Time:Days UA: Days Confined: Education...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120017490

    Original file (20120017490.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The IO found the applicant violated Army Regulation 600-20 (Army Command Policy) and acted inappropriately by receiving a lap dance from a noncommissioned officer (NCO) and for being in a hot tub with two other Soldiers while they were in their bra and panties. The PRB found his file indicated he had received a referred Officer Evaluation Report for the period 6 June 2010 through 4 February 2011 and an Article 15 after the convene date of the promotion selection board. In this regard, the...

  • USMC | DRB | 2007_Marine | MD0700455

    Original file (MD0700455.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Medical/Service Record Entries Related to Characterization of Service or Basis for Discharge 20010702: Applicant counseled concerning an alcohol-related incident specifically getting drunk and going into an unauthorized absence status. Applicant chose not to make a statement.20031016: Medical Record: Reason for visit: Facial Injury due to fight/altercation: Diagnosis: Recommendation:20031201: MARCORSEPMAN 6105 counseling for pattern of misconduct, violation of Articles 86, 92,121, and 134. ...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700222

    Original file (ND0700222.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)19990609 - 19990629Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 19990630Years Contracted:Date of Discharge:20001101 Length of Service: 01 Yrs 04Mths02 DysLost Time:Days UA: Days Confined: Education Level: Age at...

  • 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 | 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 | MD0701233

    Original file (MD0701233.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 ServicePrior Service: Inactive: USMCR (DEP)20020307 - 20021014Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 20021015Years Contracted:; Extension: Date of Discharge:20050414Length of Service: Yrs Mths29 DysLost Time:Days UA: Days Confined: Education Level:...

  • USMC | DRB | 2007_Marine | MD0701134

    Original file (MD0701134.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 ServicePrior Service: Inactive: USMCR (DEP)19971023 - 19971109 Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 19971110Years Contracted:; Extension: Date of Discharge:20010608Length of Service: 03 Yrs 06Mths29 DysLost Time:Days UA: Days Confined: Education Level: Age...

  • 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...