Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0800827
Original file (MD0800827.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-, USMC

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20080115
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)     19950524 - 19950820              Active:

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment: 19950821      Period of E nlistment : Years Months    Date of Discharge: 19990122
Length of Service : Yrs Mths 02 D ys      Education Level:         Age at Enlistment:       AFQT: 61
MOS: 6112        Highest Rank:    Fitness R eports:
Proficiency/Conduct M arks (# of occasions): ( )/ ( )
Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):

Periods of UA / CONF :

NJPs :    
19981119 : Art icle 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation).
Awarded . Susp - .
19990107 : Art icle 86 (Unauthorized absence ), from restriction muster at 0800-0831, 19981226.
Awarded . Susp - .
S CMs :   

SPCMs:  

CC:      

6105 Counseling :
19960416:        For academic failure from the Basic Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical course.
19970808 :         For failure to maintain USMC weight standards (current weight 222 pounds; max weight by MCO P6100.10J is 214 pounds).
19980918 :         For thirty minutes UA on 19980725 ; 3 different occasions of insubordinate conduct towards senior NCO's.
19980922 :         For not at appointed place of duty.
19980928 :         For failure to comply with Marine Corps height and weight standards.

Types of Documents Submitted/reviewed

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. Record of service .
Decision


Date: 20 08 0814             Location: Washington D.C .         R epresentation :

By a vote of the Characterization shall .
By a vote of
the Narrative Reason shall UNSATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE .

Discussion

: ( ) . 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. 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 NDRB review ed all of the available records , supporting documents, facts, e lements of d ischarge , evidence submitted by the Applicant , and circumstances unique to this case . Of p articular interest w ere the Applicant’s record of service , his proficiency and conduct marks, and the circumstances of his non - judicial punishments. The applicant had above average pro/con markings and one of his NJP’s was for playing on the Squadron football team while assigned to the weight control program. The Applicant was noted at being 8 lbs overweight, weighing 222 lbs while his maximum weight allowed is 214 lbs. The Applicant’s second NJP was centered around being 31 minutes late to a restriction muster. While the NDRB understands discipline and standards must be met, t he NDRB concluded there w ere i nequit ies in the Applicant’s discharge action resulting in an inequity in the discharge characterization , which the Board felt did not match his overall service record . The Board determined an upgrade to Honorable would be appropriate.

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. Paragraph 6206, UNSATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE , of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16E), effective 18 August 1995 to 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 .



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

  • USMC | DRB | 2012_Marine | MD1200226

    Original file (MD1200226.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The record did reflect the Applicant failed to meet established height and weight standards after being placed in the weight control program for 13 months. Based on the evidence of record, coupled with the fact that no reason for discharge was contemplated by the command prior to the Applicant’s weight control failure, the NDRB determined the quality of the Applicant’s service met the standards of accepted conduct and performance of duty for military personnel. Since full relief had been...

  • USMC | DRB | 2007_Marine | MD0700997

    Original file (MD0700997.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)20000923 - 20010710Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 20010711Years Contracted:Date of Discharge:20040326Length of Service: 02 Yrs 08Mths15 DysLost Time:Days UA: Days Confined: Education Level:Age at...

  • USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0501233

    Original file (MD0501233.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    over maximum allowable weight and given a weight loss goal of 3 lbs. The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflects his willful failure to meet the requirements of his contract with the Marine Corps and falls short of that required for an upgrade of his characterization of service. The Applicant further contends that after his brother’s death in November 1997, the Applicant became depressed and “failed to care about the Marine...

  • USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0601151

    Original file (MD0601151.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You have four months from this date to reduce your weight to 214 lbs, or below and/or reduce your body fat to 18% or below; however you may also raise your PFT to a first class score while maintaining 22% or less body fat percentage within the time period to be removed from the program. Elements of Discharge: [INVOLUNTARY] Date Notified: 20050615Basis for Discharge:WEIGHT CONTROL FAILURELeast Favorable Characterization: Commanding Officer’s Intended Recommendation: Record Supports Narrative...

  • USMC | DRB | 2007_Marine | MD0700014

    Original file (MD0700014.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board found no evidence to suggest the Applicant’s discharge was not proper.Issue 2 (Equity): Regulations state that separations initiated within the entry level period (first 180 days of service) will normally be characterized as “Uncharacterized.” The Board found no evidence in the record or the documentation submitted by the applicant that identifiedexceptional circumstances that may warrant an honorable discharge. After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the...

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0901528

    Original file (MD0901528.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The majority of the Board opined that had the Applicant given a reasonable effort, the command would have discharged her due to weight control failure or based on a recommendation from the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) due to the injury; both of which would have rated an Honorable discharge based on her service record. Relief denied.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, medical and record entries, and discharge process,...

  • USMC | DRB | 1999_Marine | MD99-00989

    Original file (MD99-00989.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.950216: Weight evaluation: Weight 208 pounds. Specifically, the applicant had two instances of misconduct, counseling for negotiating worthless checks (in Aug 95) and CO’s NJP for using provoking words and conduct unbecoming a US Marine (in Mar 95). Regardless of any medical injury, the applicant was still required to keep within body fat standards.

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0901646

    Original file (MD0901646.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 | 2006_Marine | MD0600904

    Original file (MD0600904.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :941105: Reenlisted this date for a term of 4 years.950607: Applicant’s Reporting Senior and Reviewing Officer reported approved alternate weight standard of 218 pounds on Applicant’s fitness report for period 950301 – 950403.960108: Applicant’s Reporting Senior and Reviewing Officer reported approved alternate weight standard of 220 pounds on Applicant’s fitness report for period 950403 – 960108.960208: Applicant referred to Credentialed...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801070

    Original file (MD0801070.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT.Discussion :().The Applicant implies he was not responsible for his behavior since he was suffering from both Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and Depression at the time of his misconduct. 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 Applicant Complaint Procedures : If...