Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0800375
Original file (MD0800375.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-1LT, USMC
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20071212
Characterization of Service Received:
Narrative Reason for Discharge: UNACCEPTABLE CONDUCT
Authority for Discharge: Authority: MARCORSEPMAN 4104 & secnavINST 1920.6B

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

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
 Inactive: USMCR (DEP)                                   
Period of Service Under Review:
 Date of Commissioning : 19980320            Period of enlistment : N/A Date of Discharge: 20020517
Length of Service : 03 Yrs 11 Mths   01 D ys          Education Level: 16       Age at Commissioning : 24          AFQT: 88
MOS: 7599        Highest Rank: 1LT        Fitness reports:
Proficiency/Conduct marks (# of occasions): N/A
 Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214): NUC, CERTCOM x 2

Periods of UA / CONF :

NJPs :    
        
6105 Counseling :
        

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. One isolated incident.
2. Commanding Officer’s discharge characterization recommendation was not followed.

Decision

Date: 20 08 0306             Location: Washington D.C         R epresentation :

By a vote of the Characterization shall .
By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall UNACCEPTABLE CONDUCT.

Discussion

Issue 1 (Equity). T he 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. There is credible evidence in the record that the Applicant twice violated the UCMJ. The evidence of record does not demonstrate that the Applicant was not responsible for h is conduct 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 general (under 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, even though isolated, warrant separation from the Naval service in order to maintain proper order and discipline. 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 two DUI charges. V iolation s of UCMJ Article 111 are considered serious offense s for which a punitive discharge is authorized if adjudged by a Special or General Courts Martial. An upgrade to honorable would be inappropriate.

Issue 2 (Propriety/Equity). The Applicant implies that he was treated unfairly by the Separation Authority. Per regulation, t he government enjoys a presumption of regularity in the conduct of its affairs. The Applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support his issue. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the Applicant produced any evidence, to support the contention that he was wrongfully discharged. The Applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity in this case. The Commanding Officer’s recommendation for separation is just that; a recommendation. The Separation Authority determines whether the allegations in the notification of the basis for separation are substantiated by the evidence. There is no provisional guarantee that a Marine will receive anything that a local Commanding Officer recommends.

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, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found that

Pertinent Regulation/Law

 A. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 1920.6B (ADMINISTRATIVE SEPARATION OF OFFICERS), effective 13 December 1999 until 14 December 2005 establishes policies, standards and procedures for the administrative separation of Navy and Marine Corps officers from the naval service in accordance with Title 10, United States Code and DoD Directive 1332.30 of 14 March 1997.
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 111 .

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 | 2010_Marine | MD1000911

    Original file (MD1000911.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ” 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. 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. Additionally, the NDRB has no authority to upgrade a...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0901222

    Original file (ND0901222.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: Substance Abuse: Criminal Records: Family/Personal Status: Community Service: References: Additional Statements: From Applicant: From/To Representation:From/ToCongress member:Other Documentation: DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1201852

    Original file (ND1201852.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Representation: By a vote of the Characterization shall .By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall .Discussion The NDRB, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge, is authorized to change the character of service and the reason for discharge if such change is warranted.In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801113

    Original file (ND0801113.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Record Entries, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2014_Marine | MD1400234

    Original file (MD1400234.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant’s administrative separation package, which included his qualified resignation request, was properly submitted up the Applicant’s chain of command and was approved by the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower & Reserve Affairs) with a narrative reason of Unacceptable Conduct and a corresponding Separation Code of BNC1.The Applicant submitted a request for a qualified resignation, and the Separation Code FND applies only to unqualified resignations. Relief denied.Summary:...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2014_Navy | ND1400514

    Original file (ND1400514.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The NDRB is not authorized to change a Narrative Reason for Separation to enhance eligibility for Department of Veterans Affairs benefits. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the Applicant produced any evidence, to support the contention that her Narrative Reason for Separation is incorrect.There is no documentation in the Applicant’s service record that directs the specific reason for the Applicant’s release from active duty, which would have been ordered by Commander, Navy...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900546

    Original file (ND0900546.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board did complete a thorough review of the Applicant’s record of service; however, could only determine he resigned in lieu of administrative separation or board action for a civilian conviction based on the Separation Code (BKB) on his DD Form 214. After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Record Entries, Discharge Process the Board found ADDENDUM: Information for the Applicant Complaint Procedures : If you believe that the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0902412

    Original file (ND0902412.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Secretary of the Navy Instruction 1920.6B (ADMINISTRATIVE SEPARATION OF OFFICERS), effective 13 December 1999 until 14 December 2005 establishes policies, standards and procedures for the administrative separation of Navy and Marine Corps officers from the naval service in accordance with Title 10, United States Code and DoD Directive 1332.30 of 14 March 1997.B. Relief denied.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900784

    Original file (ND0900784.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board determined the characterization of service received, General (Under Honorable Conditions), was an appropriate characterization considering the length of service and the UCMJ violations involved, and based on the lack of post-service documentation provided 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 by the Applicant, the Board found...

  • USMC | DRB | 2007_Marine | MD0700189

    Original file (MD0700189.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Record of service. There is credible evidence in the record that the Applicant violated the UCMJ. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the Applicant produced any evidence, to support the contention that the command unfairly singled him out for discipline.