Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2007_Marine | MD0701226
Original file (MD0701226.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-PVT, USMC
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20070905
Characterization of Service Received:
Narrative Reason for Discharge: MISCONDUCT
Authority for Discharge: MARCORSEPMAN 6210.5

Applicant’s Request:     Characterization change to:
                           Narrative Reason change to:


Summary of Service

Prior Service:
 Inactive: USMCR (DEP) 20020416 - 20020904               
Period of Service Under Review:
 Date of Enlistment: 20020905               Period of enlistment : 4 Years Months            Date of Discharge: 20031104
Length of Service : 01 Yrs 02 Mths 00 D ys         Education Level: 12       Age at Enlistment: 18     AFQT: 32
MOS: 0311 Highest Rank: PFC                                
Proficiency/Conduct marks (# of occasions):      4.2 ( 3 ) / 3.2 ( 4 )
 Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214): NDSM, RIFLE MM

Periods of UA /Confinement : 31 / 0

NJPs :    
         20030211 : Art(s) 112a             Awarded - FOP, RIR, RESTR                 Susp - FOP
20030929 : Art(s) 86 and 121      Awarded - , , . .       Susp -

Retention Warnings: .
         20030603 : For dereliction in the performance of your duites while on roving patrol .


Types of Documents Submitted

 Related to Military Service:      DD 214:          Service and/or Medical Record:            Other Records:

Related to Post-Service Period:  
         Employment:                        Finances:                          Education /Training :     
         Health/Medical Records:           Substance Abuse:                           Criminal Records:       
         Family/Personal Status:                   Community Service:                References:              
        
Additional Statements From Applicant:             From Representat ion :              From Member of Congress:
Other Documentation (Describe)



DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB)
DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT

Applicant’s Issues

 1. Employment opportunities.
2. Youth and immaturity.
3. Post service.

Decision

Date: 20 08 0131             Location: Washington D.C         R epresentation :

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

 : 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). The Board reviews the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge individually, on a case-by-case basis. If such a review reveals an impropriety or inequity, relief is in order. Regulations permit relief on equitable grounds if the Applicant’s discharge is inconsistent with standards of discipline of the Naval service. The Applicant contends that his problems were attributed to his immaturity. While he may feel that this was the underlying cause of his misconduct, the record clearly reflects his willful misconduct and demonstrated he was unfit for further service. There is credible evidence in the record that the Applicant used illegal drugs . The evidence of record does not demonstrate that the Applicant was not responsible for h is c onduct or that he should not be held accountable for h is actions. When a Marine’s service has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service under honorable conditions. A n 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. C ertain serious offenses warrant separation from the Naval service in order to maintain proper order and discipline. The Applicant’s service was marred by two nonjudicial punishments for violations of Article(s) 86, 1 12a, and 12 1 of the UCMJ. Individuals are indoctrinated from the day of recruitment and have had the policy reinforced throughout their enlistment on the Mari n e Corps’ zero tolerance policy for substance abuse and that a violation of this policy will result in mandatory processing for administrative separation which usually results in an unfavorable characterization of discharge. V iolation s of Article (s) 86, 112a, and 121 are considered serious offense s for which a punitive discharge is authorized if adjudged by a Special or General Courts Martial. Additionally, the Applicant was afforded an opportunity that rarely is ever granted; a suspended other than honorable discharge. This was subsequently squandered with further misconduct for which a punitive discharge is authorized through Court Martial. An upgrade or change would be inappropriate.
Issue 3 (Equity). The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. However, 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 the civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Normally, to permit relief, a procedural impropriety or inequity must have been found to have existed during the period of enlistment in question. Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent that such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the Applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review, is considered. The Applicant provided no documentation other than his father’s statement outlining post service accomplishments. The Applicant's efforts need to be more encompassing than those provided. For example, the Applicant could have produced evidence of continuing educational pursuits, a verifiable and continuous employment record, documentation of community service, evidence of a drug free lifestyle, and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities. The Board determined that the Applicant ’s post service conduct did not mitigate the misconduct that resulted in the characterization of discharge.

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, the Board found that


Pertinent Regulation/Law

 A. The Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16F, effective 1 Sep 2001 until Present, Paragraph 6210, MISCONDUCT.
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 112a.

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 | 2011_Navy | ND1101120

    Original file (ND1101120.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT Applicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant seeks an upgrade for employment opportunities and to reenlist into the Armed Forces.2. Relief denied.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service and record entries, the Board found Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall and the narrative reason for separation shall remain . ”...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1100655

    Original file (ND1100655.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT Applicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant seeks an upgrade in order to reenlist into the Armed Forces.2. Relief denied.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 service shall and the narrative reason for separation shall remain . ” Additional...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0902623

    Original file (ND0902623.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.Applicant seeks an upgrade to reenlist in the military.2. When notified of administrative separation processing using the procedure, the Applicant had an opportunity to defend himself, but waived rights to consult with a qualified counsel, submit a written statement, and request an administrative board or a General Court-Martial Convening Authority review. ” Additional Reviews...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1001574

    Original file (ND1001574.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs determines eligibility for such post-service benefits, not the Naval Discharge Review Board. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application is received at the NDRB within 15 years of the Applicant’s date of discharge. Additionally, the NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities.

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0901428

    Original file (MD0901428.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. Clemency denied.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Service Record Entries, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found clemency was not warranted and the sentence awarded the Applicant at his court-martial was appropriate for the offenseshe committed.Therefore, the awarded...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1200923

    Original file (ND1200923.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Types of Documents Submitted/reviewedRelated to Military Service: DD 214: Service/Medical Record: Other Records: Related to Post-Service Period: Employment: Finances: Education/Training: Health/Medical Records: Rehabilitation/Treatment: Criminal Records: Personal Documentation: Community Service: References: Department of VA letter: Other Documentation: Additional Statements: From Applicant: From/To Representation: From/To Congress member: DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD...

  • USMC | DRB | 2015_Marine | MD1500249

    Original file (MD1500249.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    This usually results in an unfavorable characterization of discharge or, at a maximum, a punitive discharge and possible confinement if adjudicated and awarded as part of a sentence by a special or general court-martial. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application is received at the NDRB within 15 years of the Applicant’s date of discharge. Additionally, the NDRB has no authority...

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0901362

    Original file (MD0901362.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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.Regulations limit the NDRB’s review to a determination of the propriety and equity of the discharge.Issue 2: (Nondecisional) The Applicant wants to use the G.I.Bill for school. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900105

    Original file (ND0900105.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received at the NDRB within 15 years from the date 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. Additionally, the Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0800903

    Original file (ND0800903.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant is advised that completion of these items alone does not guarantee the upgrade of an unfavorable discharge, as each discharge is reviewed by the Board on a case by case basis to determine if post service conduct mitigates the reason for the characterization of discharge.The Board determined an upgrade would be inappropriate.After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Record Entries, Discharge Process and evidence submitted...