Upgrade.Vet

USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0800765

Original file (MD0800765.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-, USMC

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20080304

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:         NFIR              Act ive: NFIR

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment: 19950401     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Months
Date of Discharge: 19970613      H ighest Rank: NFIR
Length of Service : Y ea r ( s ) M on th ( s ) 13 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: NFIR
MOS: 1371
Proficiency/Conduct M arks (# of occasions): /          Fitness R eports:

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      Rifle

Periods of UA / CONF : 19960419-19960422 (4 days) (unable to determine type of lost time)

NJP: NFIR SCM: NFIR SPCM: CC: Retention Warning Counseling :

Types of Documents Submitted/reviewed

Related 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 Representat ion : From Congress member :

Other Documentation :

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A. Paragraph 6210, MISCONDUCT , of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16E), effective 31 January 1997 until 31 August 2001.

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 (NFIR).

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

Applicant’s Issues

1. Reenlistment o pportunities .
2. Employment o pportunities
3. Post- s ervice conduct.

Decision

Date: 20 0 9 0416 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 , specifically the paragraphs concerning s and , regarding .

: ( ) . The Applicant admits he made some extremely bad decisions , which contributed to his short military career ending abruptly with an unfavorable discharge. Unfortunately, the NDRB has been unable to locate the Applicant’s Military Service Records after several attempts to both the National Personnel Records Center and the Records Branch at Headquarters Marine Corps, thus the reason for the delay in reviewing the Applicant’s case and the abbreviation NFIR found throughout the Summary of Service portion of this write up . 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. It’s apparent t he Applicant’s record of service was marred by violation s of the Uniform Cod e of Military Justice (UCMJ) , which resulted in an “ Under Other Than Honorable Conditions” discharge. Despite a Marine’s prior record of se rvice, certain serious offenses, warrant separation from the n aval service in order to maintain proper order and discipline. An “Under Other Than Honorable C onditions ” 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. It’s assumed that the violations were considered serious offenses, which are punishable by punitive discharge and confinement if adjudicated by a spe cial or general court-martial. The command did not pursue a punitive discharge but opted instead for an administrative discharge.

The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. However, there is no law or regulation, which provides 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. Outstanding post-service conduct, 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, is considered during Board reviews. Documentation to help support a post service conduct upgrade includes, but is not limited to: a verifiable continuous employment record; marriage and children’s birth certificate (if applicable); character witness statements; documentation of community or church service; certification of non-involvement with civil authorities; evidence of financial stability or letters of good standing from banks, credit card companies, or other financial institutions; attending or completion of higher education (official transcripts) and documentation of a drug free lifestyle. 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 accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member’s overall character.

Besides the Applicant s statement on the DD Form 293, he provide d additional references as evidence on his behalf. Although it appears the Applicant has been successful in the title research process and accomplished some community service , the Board d etermined these were not sufficient to warrant a discharge upgrade. T o warrant an upgrade , the Applicant’s post service

efforts need to be more encompassing and documented . The Applicant could have produced additional evidence as stated in the above paragraph with the full understanding completion of these items alone does not guarantee an upgrade. The Board determined the characterization of service received, “Under Other Than Honorable Conditions”, was an appropriate characterization considering the length of service and based on the limited 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, 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 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 or is referred to a court-martial fo r 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 other medical related reasons. ” 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 special 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. The NDRB does not have the jurisdictional authority to review a discharge or dismissal resulting from a general court-martial.

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 | 2009_Navy | ND0901390

Original file (ND0901390.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 without any 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 Pertinent...
USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0900848

Original file (MD0900848.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Board determined the characterization of service received, Under Other Than Honorable Conditions, was an appropriate characterization considering the length of service and the UCMJ violation involved, and based on the limited post-service documentation provided an upgrade would be inappropriate.Should the Applicant obtain additional evidence or post-servicedocumentation he may wish to apply for a personal appearance. After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the...
NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900818

Original file (ND0900818.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Board determined the evidence of post-service conduct was not sufficient enough to warrant an upgrade of his discharge characterization. The Board determined the characterization of service received, General (Under Honorable Conditions), was an appropriate characterization and with limited post-service documentation 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...
NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801470

Original file (ND0801470.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to: Narrative Reason change to: Summary of ServicePrior Service: Inactive: USNR (DEP)NFIRActive: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 19930216Period of Enlistment: YearsExtensionDate of Discharge:19960619Length of Service: Years Months04 DaysEducation Level: Age at Enlistment:AFQT: NFIRHighest Rank/Rate:NFIREvaluationMarks:Performance:NFIRBehavior:NFIROTA: NFIRAwards and Decorations (per DD 214):Periods of UA/CONF:...
NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801814

Original file (ND0801814.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Board determined the awarded discharge was appropriate and an upgrade would be inappropriate.The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. 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 limited post service documentation provided an upgrade would be...
NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900350

Original file (ND0900350.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Board determined the awarded discharge characterization was appropriate and an upgrade would be inappropriate.The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. 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...
NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900858

Original file (ND0900858.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to: Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive:USNR (DEP)20030825 - 20040116Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 20040117Age at Enlistment:Period of Enlistment: YearsExtensionDate of Discharge:20050411Highest Rank/Rate:NFIRLength of Service: Year(s)Month(s)25 Day(s)Education Level:AFQT: 59EvaluationMarks:Performance:NFIRBehavior:NFIROTA: NFIRAwards and Decorations (per DD 214):Periods of UA/CONF:...
NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900259

Original file (ND0900259.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Should the Applicant obtain additional evidence or post service documentation he may wish to apply for a personal appearance. ” 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. 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...
NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900641

Original file (ND0900641.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to: Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive: USNR (DEP)20070117 - 20070212Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 20070213Age at Enlistment:Period of Enlistment: YearsExtensionDate of Discharge:20080222Highest Rank/Rate:SKSNLength of Service: YearMonth(s)10 Day(s)Education Level:AFQT: 55EvaluationMarks:Performance:NFIRBehavior:NFIROTA: NFIRAwards and Decorations (per DD 214):Periods of UA/CONF:...
NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801484

Original file (ND0801484.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Board determined based on the limited documentation provided an upgrade would be inappropriate and the characterization of service received, “Under Other Than Honorable”, was an appropriate characterization considering the time served and the nature of the UCMJ violation involved.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 ADDENDUM: Information for the...

Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0800765

Similar Decisions