Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0800780
Original file (MD0800780.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-, USMC
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20080313
Characterization of Service Received:
Narrative Reason for Discharge:
Authority for Discharge: MARCORSEPMAN (comission of a serious offense)

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

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
 Inactive: USMCR (DEP)    NONE                       Active: 20051214 – 20060513
Period of Service Under Review:
 Date of Enlistment: 20070318     Period of enlistment : 00 Years 6 Months         Date of Discharge: 20070620
Length of Service: Yrs Mths 2 D ys      Education Level:         Age at Enlistment:       AFQT: 35
MOS: 0331 Highest Rank:                           Fitness reports:
Proficiency/Conduct marks (# of occasions):      ( )/ ( )
 Awards and Decorations (per DD 214): Rifle Pistol

Periods of UA/CONF: 28 days CONF

 NJPs:   

SCMs:    1
          20070507 Art(s) 86 (UA); 107 – 2x (False Official Statements) Sentence -

SPCMs:  

CC:     

6105 Counseling:
         20070329 : For n ot paying cab fair, lying and involving another individual to provide a written statement and lie to the comand about the Applicant's wereabouts on the evening in question. This contained a discharge warning.

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 Representation:              From Member of Congress:
Other Documentation (Describe) Charge sheet; Omega World Travel ticket invoice; PCS endorsement from CO, MCB; DD-214 from 20051214 - 20060513; ltr from Carolyn McCarthy, Member of Congress.



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

Applicant’s Issues

 1. Reenlistment opportunities.
2. Improper discharge.
Decision

Date: 20080410            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 ( ). 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 discipline standards of 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 bears the burden of overcoming this presumption of regularity through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support the issues.

The Applicant is a Reserve Component Marine assigned to 2 nd Battalion, 25 th Marines (located in New York) and was under 6-month Active Duty Operational Support orders assigned to Operations Company, Headquarters and Service Battalion, Quantico, VA when the violations occurred.

There is credible evidence in the Applicant’s record reflecting deceitful actions and false statements beginning within 10-days after the Applicant reported for duty. It was noted documentation was provided showing train tickets were issued by Omega World Travel for the Applicant to return to New York as he stated. However, there was is no supporting documentation or indicators this return was actually authorized by the Operations Company command leadership. In fact, subsequent actions taken by the command shortly after the issue of the tickets indicate the command leadership was unaware of this action. Documentation and a situational timeline indicate the Applicant attempted to leave the command by obtaining an orders modification and travel tickets under false pretenses. When uncovered, the command ordered the Applicant to report to the Operations Command, Headquarters & Service Company at 0700 on 4 April 2007, which the Applicant failed to do. The initial charge of violating the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 86 was compounded by two specifications of making false official statements; the Applicant was made the subject of a Summary Court-Martial (SCM). The Applicant was advised of his rights, consulted with a Military Attorney, and entered a plea of guilty at the SCM to the charges. As a result the command recommended and processed the Applicant for an Administrative Separation based on the Commission of a Serious Offense under paragraph 6210.6 of MCO P1900.16F, Marine Corps Separations and Retirement Manual. The Applicant was made aware of these actions and provided a written statement to the CO, Headquarters and Service Battalion, Marine Corps Base, Quantico, VA asking to be retained. The Commander, Marine Corps Base, Quantico authorized an ‘Under Other Than Honorable Conditions’ discharge with a separations code HKQ1. A review of the discharge process in the Applicant’s record indicates the discharge was in accordance with established DoD and Marine Corps procedures; the Applicant was unable to provide any evidence to support his claim the discharge was improper.

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. 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 86, 107.

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, provided 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 granted 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.
Employment/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 | 2007_Marine | MD0700715

    Original file (MD0700715.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Administrative Board unanimously voted to separate the Applicant and not suspend his separation. The Board determined that an upgrade to honorable would not be appropriate.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. Recommendation on Separation: BY SHOULD NOT BE SUSPENDED Recommendation on Characterization: BY Commanding...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1100080

    Original file (ND1100080.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant contends medical issues contributed to his misconduct.2. ” 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. Additionally, the NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole...

  • USMC | DRB | 2012_Marine | MD1200789

    Original file (MD1200789.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Relief 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 are...

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0901727

    Original file (MD0901727.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Also, 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. A request for a waiver can be submitted during the processing of a formal application for reenlistment through a recruiterSummary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, medical and service record entries, discharge process and...

  • USMC | DRB | 2007_Marine | MD0700682

    Original file (MD0700682.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Record of service. 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) 20011023 - 20020121 Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 20020122Years Contracted:4; Extension: Date of Discharge:20060109Length of Service: 03 Yrs 11Mths18 DysLost Time:Days UA: Days...

  • USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1000636

    Original file (MD1000636.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT Applicant’s Issues 1. 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801773

    Original file (MD0801773.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s Request: Characterization change to: or Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive: USMCR (DEP)20021107 - 20030120Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 20030121Period of Enlistment: Years MonthsDate of Discharge:20070116Length of Service: Years Months09 DaysEducation Level: Age at Enlistment:AFQT: 33MOS: 0351Highest Rank: Fitness Reports: Proficiency/Conduct Marks (# of occasions):(NFIR)/(NFIR)Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):...

  • USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1002046

    Original file (MD1002046.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The NDRB reviewed all of the available evidence within the Applicant’s service records. Additionally, after initial notification of administrative separation processing (27 May2009), the Applicant submitted a written letter explaining his circumstances up through his chain of command (Rebuttal of Recommendation for General Characterization, dated 4 Jun 2009) which included: Commanding Officer, TBS; Commander, Training Command; Commanding General, Training and Education Command; Commanding...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801731

    Original file (MD0801731.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    - Numerous e-mails DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT Applicant’s Issues 1. The NDRB determined the Applicant’s characterization of service will be changed to “General (Under Honorable Conditions)”.After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, ” Additional Reviews : Subsequent to a document review, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the...

  • USMC | DRB | 2013_Marine | MD1301178

    Original file (MD1301178.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. Relief 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 is not eligible for further reviews by the NDRB. ” Additional Reviews : After...