Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0800454
Original file (MD0800454.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-LCPL, USMC
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20071218
Characterization of Service Received:
Narrative Reason for Discharge:
Authority for Discharge: MARCORSEPMAN (commission of a serious offense)

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

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
 Inactive: USMCR (DEP)     20020905 - 20021027                      
Period of Service Under Review:
 Date of Enlistment: 20021028               Period of enlistment : Years Months             Date of Discharge: 20061030
Length of Service : 04 Yrs 00 Mths   00 D ys          Education Level:         Age at Enlistment: 20     AFQT: 34
MOS: 3112        Highest Rank: L CPL               
Proficiency/Conduct marks (# of occasions):      3.9 (11) / 3.8 (11)
Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214): SSDR x 3, GWOTSM, NDSM, NUC, Ri fle EX, Pistol MM

Periods of UA / CONF : 0 / 3

NJPs :     2
         20040707 : Art(s) : 91 (Insubordinate conduct towards WO/NCO); 92 (Failure to obey)        
         Awa rded – RIR, FOP, CCU         S usp – RIR, FOP
         20050427 : Art(s) : 86 (UA), 2 -specifications; 91 , 2 -specifications
Awa rded – RIR, FOP, RESTR, EPD  Susp - FOP

CC:      1
         20060309 : Offense: Battery , 3 -specifications; Battery against spouse , 3- specifications; false imprisonment.
 Sentence – FINE, PUBLIC SERVICE, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE REHAB, NO FIREARMS FOR
1 0 - YEARS.

6105 Counseling : 4
         20040227 : For willfully disobeying a lawful order and insubordinate conduct.
         20040707: For NJP from violations of UCMJ Article(s) 91 and 92.
20050427: For NJP from violations of UCMJ Article(s) 86 and 91.
20060320: For civilian conviction on 20060309.      

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. Reenlistment opportunities.
2. Record of service.
3. Post service.

Decision


 Date: 20 08 0509 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 , specifically the paragraph concerning Reenlistment/RE-codes .

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. There is credible evidence in the record the Applicant committed serious misconduct. The evidence of record does not demonstrate 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 “ general ( under honorable conditions ) ” discharge is warranted when 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 service was marred by four discharge warnings, two non - judicial punishment s for violation s of U niform C ode of M ilitary J ustice, Article (s) : 86, 91, and 92, and one civilian conviction . V iolation s of Article (s) 91 and 92 are considered serious offense s for which a punitive discharge is authorized if adjudged by a Special or General Courts Martial. Even without the civilian conviction on his military record, the Applicant could have been discharged with an “ under other than honorable conditions ” discharge as the Commanding Officer first recommended during the initial notification procedure. As a result, the Board determined a change w ould be inappropriate and an upgrade was not warranted .
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 reference letters and character statements as evidence of post-service accomplishments. The Applicant's efforts need to be more encompassing. For example, the Applicant could have produced evidence of a verifiable and continuous employment record, documentation of community service, educational pursuits, and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities. The Board determined the post service statement provided by the Applicant did not mitigate the misconduct that resulted in the characterization of discharge.

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





Pertinent Regulation/Law

 A. Paragraph 6210, MISCONDUCT of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16E), effective 01 September 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 .

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 (s) 91 and 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

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0900013

    Original file (MD0900013.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    - 20050427:ForNJP from violation of UCMJ Article (s) 86 and 91.- 20060320:Forcivilian conviction on 20060309.- 20060712: For pending administrative separation due to civil conviction on 20060309.NDRB Documentary Review Conducted (date): 20080509 NDRB Documentary Review Docket Number: MD08-00454 NDRB Documentary Review Findings: No change warranted Types of Documents Submitted/reviewedRelated to Military Service: DD 214:Service/Medical Record: Other Records: Related to Post-Service Period:...

  • 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 | 2011_Marine | MD1101611

    Original file (MD1101611.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Clemency 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 .The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing for a period of fifteen years from the date of discharge. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1100970

    Original file (ND1100970.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    As such, this issue does not serve to provide a foundation upon which the NDRB can grant relief.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 .The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing for a period of fifteen years from the date of discharge. ”...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0800453

    Original file (MD0800453.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. 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. Paragraph 6210, MISCONDUCT...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1101359

    Original file (ND1101359.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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801241

    Original file (MD0801241.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. 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, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found Pertinent Regulation/Law A. ” Additional Reviews : Subsequent to a document review, former members are eligible for a personal appearance...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700152

    Original file (ND0700152.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Violation of UCMJ Article 89 (Disrespect toward superior commissioned officer), Article 91 (Insubordinate conduct toward a non-commissioned officer, and Article 128 (Assault upon a petty officer) are considered serious offenses for which a punitive discharge is authorized if adjudged by a Special or General Courts Martial. Date Applicant Responded to Notification:20060224 Rights Elected at Notification: Consult with Counsel Obtain Copies of Documents Submit Statement(s)...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700367

    Original file (ND0700367.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant’s service was marred by 2 retention warnings, 6 nonjudicial punishment proceedings for violations of Articles 86 (unauthorized absence), 90 (willfully disobeying a superior commissioned officer), 91 (insubordinate conduct towards a master chief petty officer), 92 (failure to obey written regulation), 95 (resistance), 112 (drunk on duty), 112a (wrongful use of a controlled substance) and 134 (unlawful entry) of the UCMJ. The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis...

  • USMC | DRB | 2007_Marine | MD0701093

    Original file (MD0701093.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board determined that the documentation provided by the Applicant did not mitigate the circumstances 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. 20050318: Vacate FOP for 1 month, Restr and Extra duties for 45 days awarded at NJP dated 20050116.20050331: MARCORSEPMAN 6105...