Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2007_Marine | MD0701164
Original file (MD0701164.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
ex-, USMC
MD07-01164

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20070821   Characterization Received:
Narrative Reason: MISCONDUCT     Authority: MARCORSEPMAN 6210.3

Applicant’s Request:      Characterization change to:
                           Narrative Reason change to:
Applicant’s Issues:       1. Committed no crime and no charges were filed against the Applicant
        
                 

Decision

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

Date: 20 08 0117                      Location: Washington D.C.         Representation :

Discussion
Issue 1: ( ). The Applicant implies that he committed no crime and no charges were filed. For the Applicant’s information, MARCORPSEPMAN par 6210.3 states that a minimum of two incidents occurring within one enlistment that are discreditable or conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline establishes a Pattern of Misconduct. The misconduct need not have been the subject of NJP or military or civilian conviction.

When a Marine’s service has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service under honorable conditions. An under other than honorable conditions discharge is warranted when significant negative aspects of a member’s conduct or performance of duty outweigh the positive aspects of the member’s military record. The Applicant’s service was marred by the award of three retention warnings for unauthorized absence, insufficient funds, and dereliction of duty. Additionally, the Applicant was the subject of one nonjudicial punishment s (NJP) for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) , Article 86 (Unauthorized absence). The Board determined that there was clearly a pattern of misconduct and an upgrade to general (under honorable conditions) would be inappropriate.

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)     20030319 - 20030708              Active:         
Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment: 20030709               Years Contracted : ; Extension:            Date of Discharge: 20040120
Length of Service : Yrs Mths 12 D ys               Lost Time : Days UA: Days Confine d :
Education Level:         Age at Enlistment:       AFQT: 38          MOS: 9900 Highest Rank:
Proficiency/Conduct marks (# of occasions):     
NOT FOUND IN RECORD       Fitness reports :
Awards and Decorations (
per DD 214): Rifle , National Defense Service Medal.





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

20031117 :        C ounseling for Unauthorized absence .

20031219 :        NJP -- Viol UCMJ Art. 86 Unauthorized absence .
         Awarded - FOP ($
248.00 ) for (1 months) susp for 6 months ; Restr for (14 days); Extra duties ( 14 days).

20031220 :        MARCORSEPMAN 6105 counseling for Unauthorized absence .

20031223
:        MARCORSEPMAN 6105 counseling for making checks with insufficient funds .

20031224
:        MARCORSEPMAN 6105 counseling for Dereliction of duties .


Discharge Process

Date Notified:   20040108
Basis for Discharge:
     DUE TO
        
Least Favorable Characterization:       
Commanding Officer’s Intended Recommendation:   

Date Applicant Responded to Notification:
                 20040108
Rights Elected at Notification:
         Consult with Counsel                      

         Obtain Copies of Documents               

         Submit Statement(s) (date)                        

         Administrative Board                      


Commanding Officer Recommendation (date):        ( 20040108 )
SJA review (date):      
( 20040116 )
Separation Authority (date):    
Commander, MCRD Paris Island ( 20040116 )
Basis for discharge directed:  
DUE TO
Characterization directed:     

Date Applicant Discharged:      
20040120

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 P1900.16F), effective 01 Sep 2001 until Present.

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 .

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 | 2008_Marine | MD0800784

    Original file (MD0800784.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT Applicant’s Issues 1. Furthermore, the NDRB notes the Applicant’s previous request for clemency filed on 22 November 2004 does not mention PTSD as the basis for that clemency request. After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Service and Medical Record Entries, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, t

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700375

    Original file (ND0700375.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The NDRB believes that erroneous enlistment best describes the narrative reason for discharge based upon the description that the action would not have occurred had the relevant facts been known by the Navy or had appropriate directives been followed. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700164

    Original file (ND0700164.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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2013_Marine | MD1300923

    Original file (MD1300923.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Per MARCORSEPMANParagraph 6210.3, separation processing for a pattern of misconduct may not be initiated until the member has been counseled in accordance with the guidelines for counseling set out in paragraph 6105. The evidence provided by the Applicant does not refute the presumption that the Applicant’s administrative board and Separation Authority were correct in their decisions that the Applicant had a proper 6105 counseling warning and was afforded a reasonable opportunity to...

  • USMC | DRB | 2007_Marine | MD0700238

    Original file (MD0700238.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 two discharge warnings, one nonjudicial punishment for violating the UCMJ Article(s) 92, Failure to obey order, regulation and 111, Drunken driving, and a guilty finding at Special Court-Martial for Article(s) 86, Unauthorized absence over thirty days and 112a, Wrongful use of a controlled substance. After a thorough...

  • USMC | DRB | 2007_Marine | MD0700768

    Original file (MD0700768.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant’s conduct during the current period of service, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service was marred by the award of three retention warnings, four nonjudicial punishments (NJP) for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), Article 86 (Unauthorized absence), Article 91 (Insubordinate conduct toward a noncommissioned officer), Article 92 (Violation, Failure to obey other order), and Article 112 (Drunk on duty). Medical/Service...

  • USMC | DRB | 2007_Marine | MD0700964

    Original file (MD0700964.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Awarded - Restr for (14 days).20060602: Applicant voluntarily waives his right to an Administrative Discharge Board.20060619: Medical Record: Reason for visit: Separation Physical Diagnosis: Fit For Separation. ” 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. Whenever a member is being processed through the Physical Evaluation...

  • 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:...

  • USMC | DRB | 2007_Marine | MD0700239

    Original file (MD0700239.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board found that Issue(s)1-2: The Board determined that these Issue(s) are not issue(s) which can form the basis for relief for the Applicant or that the Board did not have the authority to grant the relief for which the Applicant petitioned. The Applicant’s service was marred by three discharge warnings and two nonjudicial punishments for violating the UCMJ Article(s) 86 Unauthorized absence, 92 Failure to obey order, regulation, 107 False official statements, and 134 Indecent...

  • USMC | DRB | 2007_Marine | MD0700324

    Original file (MD0700324.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant’s service was marred by two discharge warnings and four nonjudicial punishments for a violations of UCMJ Article(s) 86, Unauthorized absence and 92, Failure to obey order, regulation. 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)20010220 - 20010827 Period...