Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0800393
Original file (MD0800393.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-LCPL, USMC
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20071221
Characterization of Service Received:
Narrative Reason for Discharge:
Authority for Discharge: MARCORSEPMAN (PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT)

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

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
 Inactive: USMCR (DEP) 20020916 - 20030112                        
Period of Service Under Review:
 Date of Enlistment: 20030113               Period of enlistment : 5 Years 7 Month Extension          Date of Discharge: 20070627
Length of Service : 04 Yrs 05 Mths 14 D ys          Education Level:         Age at Enlistment: 19     AFQT: 75
MOS: 0121 Highest Rank: L CPL
 Proficiency/Conduct marks (# of occasions):      NFIR
Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214): GCM, GWOTSM, NDSM, MM x 2, Rifle

Periods of UA / CONF :

NJPs :     2
         20030731 : Art 92 (Violation of a lawful general order).          Awarded – RIR, FOP . Susp – RIR, FOP
20070425 : Art 86 (Unauthorized absence).                           Awarded – RIR, FOP . Su s p – RIR, FOP

6105 Counseling : 7
         20030731 : For underage drinking in the barracks.
          20031203 : For unauthorized absence during a field day.
          2004022 6 : For a continuous pattern of misconduct.
          20060705 : For lack of responsibility, lack of judgment, and involvement with civilian authorities.
          20061221: For unauthorized absence from muster .
          20070201 : For wrongfully and unlawfully writing checks with insufficient funds , and your overall financial irresponsibility .
          20070426: For an established pattern of misconduct.

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. Veteran’s benefits.
2. Record of service.
3. Unfairly treated by command.

Decision

Date: 20 08 0 530             Location: Washington D.C         R epresentation :

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

 : (Equity) RELIEF NOT WARRANTED . either which the Board cannot form the basis of relief for the Applicant, or one the Board does not have the authority to grant the relief for which the Applicant petitioned. The Applicant is directed to the Addendum , Service Benefits, regarding .

Issue 2 : (Equity) RELIEF NOT WARRANTED. The Applicant states her record of service mitigates her misconduct. 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. There is credible evidence in the record the Applicant consistently violated the UCMJ and Naval Service values of honor, courage, and commitment. The evidence of record does not demonstrate the Applicant was not responsible for h er conduct or that s he should not be held accountable for h er actions. 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 conduct during the current period of service, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of h er service was marred by the award of two retention warnings and three nonjudicial punishments (NJP) for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), Articles 86, 91, and 92. Violations of UCMJ Articles 91 and 9 2 are considered serious offenses for which a punitive discharge is authorized if adjudged by a Special or General Courts Martial. The Board determined a n upgrade to honorable would be inappropriate.

Issue 3 : (Equity) RELIEF NOT WARRANTED. The Applicant implies s he was treated unfairly and not allowed to achieve her potential as a Marine. The 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 h er issue. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the Applicant produced any evidence, to support the contention her command treated her unfairly and did not provide her with proper counseling and guidance to meet the standards of serving as a Marine. The Applicant’s service was marred by seven retention warning and two nonjudicial punishments (NJP) for violations Articles 86 and 9 2. Violations of UCMJ Article 86 and 92 are considered serious offenses for which a punitive discharge is authorized. An upgrade to honorable would be inappropriate. 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 .

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







Pertinent Regulation/Law

A. Paragraph 6210, MISCONDUCT , of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16F), effective
1 Sep tember 200 1 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 .

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 92 .


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 | 2007_Navy | ND0701097

    Original file (ND0701097.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) 19980818 - 19981108 Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 19981109Years Contracted:4; Extension: 22 monthsDate of Discharge:20040607Length of Service:05 Yrs 06 Mths29 DysLost Time:Education Level: Age at...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1101314

    Original file (ND1101314.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB)DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. The NDRB determined a characterization upgrade is not warranted. ” 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.

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0800138

    Original file (MD0800138.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Types of Documents SubmittedRelated 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 Representation: From Member of Congress: Other Documentation (Describe) -Divorce decree 20061121 DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0701068

    Original file (ND0701068.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)19920806 - 19930124Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 19930125Years Contracted:; Extension: Date of Discharge:19950315Length of Service: 02 Yrs 01Mths21 DysLost Time:Days UA: 1 Days Confined: Education...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700332

    Original file (ND0700332.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant provided no documentation other than her statement.. 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 Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214 The NDRB did note administrative error(s) on the original DD Form 214: “UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS ” The NDRB will recommend to the Commander, Navy...

  • USMC | DRB | 2007_Marine | MD0700900

    Original file (MD0700900.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)20010709 - 20020623 Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 20020624Years Contracted:4; Extension: Date of Discharge: 20040803Length of Service: 02 Yrs 01 Mths 10 DysLost Time:Days UA: Days Confined: Education Level:...

  • USMC | DRB | 2007_Marine | MD0701170

    Original file (MD0701170.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ” 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. ” Only the Board for Correction of Naval Records can grant this type of narrative reason change.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0800282

    Original file (ND0800282.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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, the Board found...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0800800

    Original file (MD0800800.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    6105 Counseling: 20050718: For Misconduct, Reckless Driving 20060304: Violations of Article 92, Failure to Obey a Lawful Order; Art 113, Misbehavior of a Sentinel 20060414: Violations of Articles 91, Insubordinate Conduct; Art 107, False Official Statement Types of Documents SubmittedRelated 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700617

    Original file (ND0700617.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    An upgrade to honorable 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, the Board found that Summary of...