Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0800527
Original file (MD0800527.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-PVT, USMC
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20080128
Characterization of Service Received:
Narrative Reason for Discharge:
Authority for Discharge: MARCORSEPMAN

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

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
 Inactive: USMCR (DEP) 20040324 - 20050126                        
Period of Service Under Review:
 Date of Enlistment: 20050103               Period of enlistment : Years Months             Date of Discharge: 20070201
Length of Service : Yrs Mths 28 D ys      Education Level:         Age at Enlistment: 21     AFQT: 52
MOS: 7051        Highest Rank: PFC                          
Proficiency/Conduct marks (# of occasions):      4.2 (5)/3.7 (5)
Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214): GWOTSM, NDSM, COA, Rifle

Periods of UA / CONF : 24

NJPs :    
        
S CMs :    1        
         20060411 : Art 112 a x 2 Sentence - .

6105 Counseling : NONE
             

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. Should have received a medical discharge.
2. Treated unfairly by command.

Decision


 Date: 20 08 0 327             Location: Washington D.C         R epresentation :

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

 Issue 1 (Propriety) . The Applicant is directed to the Addendum regarding this Issue . DoDD 1332.14, Enlisted Administrative Separations, stipulate s separations for misconduct take precedence over potential separations for other designated physical or mental conditions. Whenever a member is being administratively processed for separation through a Physical E valuation Board, and subsequently is processed for an administrative involuntary separation for misconduct, the disabi lity evaluation is suspended and the misconduct separation takes precedence.

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 Appl i cant’s discharge is inconsistent with standards of discipline o f the Naval service. 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.

The Applicant implies he was treated unfairly by his command . The Applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption of regularity through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support his issue. There is credible evidence in the record that the Applicant used illegal drugs. T here is no evidence in the record, nor has the Applicant produced any evidence, to support the contention the command unfairly singled him out or acted contrary to established DoD regulations. The Applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity in this case. When a Marine’s service has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service under honorable conditions. An under other tha n honorable condition s 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 his service, was marred by one Summary Court Martial for two violations of U niform C ode of M ilitary J ustice (UCMJ), Article 112a. A v iolation of UCMJ Article 112a is considered a serious offense for which a punitive discharge is authorized if adjudged by a Special or General Courts Martial. A change or upgrade in the discharge would be inappropriate.

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. The Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16F ) , effective 01 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 | 2008_Navy | ND0801174

    Original file (ND0801174.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 Pertinent Regulation/Law A. ” 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 NDRB does not have the authority to change a...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0800034

    Original file (MD0800034.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s Request: Characterization change to: Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive: USMCR (DEP) 20000621 - 20000730 Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 20000731Period of enlistment: Years Months Date of Discharge: 20030530Length of Service: Yrs Mths07 Dys Education Level: Age at Enlistment: AFQT: 49MOS: 3381 Highest Rank: Fitness reports: Proficiency/Conduct marks (# of occasions): 3.7(6)/3.5(6) Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):...

  • USMC | DRB | 2007_Marine | MD0700480

    Original file (MD0700480.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Date:20071101Location:Washington D.C.Representation: Texas Veterans Commission Discussion Issue 1: The Board determined that this issue is not an issue 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. 20031121 Rights Elected at Notification: Consult with Counsel Obtain Copies of Documents Submit Statement(s) (date) Administrative Board Commanding Officer Recommendation...

  • USMC | DRB | 2007_Marine | MD0700680

    Original file (MD0700680.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 or did not follow Marine Corps regulations during the separation processing. 20040129 Rights Elected at Notification: Consult with Counsel Obtain Copies of Documents Submit Statement(s) (date) Administrative Board Commanding Officer Recommendation (date): (20040123)SJA review (date): (20040316)Separation Authority...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801356

    Original file (MD0801356.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board determined the characterization awarded was appropriate and an upgrade or change would be inappropriate.Issue 3: (Equity)RELIEF NOT WARRANTED.The Applicant implies he was treated unfairly by his command.As stated above, 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. The Board determined an upgrade would be inappropriate based on this...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0800816

    Original file (MD0800816.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    There is no evidence in the record, nor has the Applicant produced any evidence, to support the contention the command unfairly singled him out for ridicule or discipline. After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Service Record, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found that Pertinent Regulation/Law A Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual,para 1005, DISCHARGE FOR EXPIRATION OF ENLISTMENT OR...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801594

    Original file (ND0801594.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Violations of Article 112a result in mandatory processing for an administrative separation which usually results in an unfavorable characterization of discharge.The Applicant has requested a change in their discharge characterization to “Honorable”. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700941

    Original file (ND0700941.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 Date of Commission:20010525Date of Discharge : 20040227Length of Service Active: 02 09 03 Inactive: NoneTime Lost During This Period Discharge Process Date Notified: 20030624Reason for Discharge:Least Favorable Characterization: Date Applicant Responded to...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801391

    Original file (ND0801391.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board determined the misconduct represented significant negative conduct and the awarded discharge characterization was appropriate; an upgrade to “Honorable” 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 ADDENDUM: Information for the Applicant Complaint Procedures : If you believe that the decision in your case is unclear,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801709

    Original file (ND0801709.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant has requested an upgrade to his discharge characterization to “Honorable”. The awarded discharge characterization was determined to be appropriate, an upgrade to honorable 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 ADDENDUM: Information for the Applicant Complaint Procedures : If you believe that the decision...