Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801161
Original file (MD0801161.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-, USMC
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20080502
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)    19980227 - 19980908              Active:

Period of Service Under Review:
 Date of Enlistment: 19980909      Period of Enlistment : Years Months     Date of Discharge: 20030516
Length of Service: Years Months 08 D ays        Education Level: Age at Enlistment:
AFQT: 31          MOS: 3531         Highest Rank:    Fitness Reports:
Proficiency/Conduct Marks (# of occasions):      4.0 (7) / 3.4 (7)
Awards and Decorations (per DD 214): Rifle

Periods of UA/CONF: CONF: 20010408-20010626 (80 days)

 NJPs:
20000328 : Article 86 (Unauthorized absence), from place of duty 0415-0530, 20000316 1 hour, 15 minutes,
Article 92 (Derelict in performance of duties).
 Awarded: . Suspension:

20000105 : Article 92 (Failed to obey lawful order by under age consumption of alcoholic beverages).
 Awarded: . Suspended: .

 20000921 : Article 86 (Unauthorized absence), from 1200-1710, 20000905 5 hours, 10 minutes.
Article 92 (Failed to obey a written order).
 Awarded: . Suspended: .

 20001106 : Article 86 (Unauthorized absence), 3 specifications:
         - Specification 1: (Unauthorized absence from 0630-0645, 20001013 (15 minutes).
         - Specification 2: (Unauthorized absence from 0715-0725, 20001024 (10 minutes).
         - Specification 3: (Unauthorized absence from 0615-0640, 20001030 (20 minutes).
 Awarded: . Suspended: .

 20010207 : Article 90 (Willfully disobeyed an order) LtCol’s order not to fight.
 Awarded: . Suspended: .

 20010313 : Article 86 (Unauthorized absence), from appointed place of duty 0030-0705, 20010304 6 hours, 35
minutes.
Article 90 (Willfully disobeyed an order), Lt Col’s order not to leave the confines of his room.
Awarded: . Suspended: .
SCMs:   




Period of Service Under Review (cont):
SPCMs:  
20010627 : Article 86 (Unauthorized absence), from unit 20010405-20010408 (3 days)
Article 91 (Willfully disobeyed order)
 Article 128 (Assault), Unlawfully grabbed L. S. by the arm, picked her up and threw her across a bed into
a night stand.
Sentence: BCD CONF 120 DAYS .
CA Action (20020207): Sentence approved as adjudged.
CC:     
20001228 : Offense: Criminal domestic violence .
 Sentence: Fine $1025. Fine suspended for 6 months.

6105 Counseling:
20000328 :        For failure to conform to Marine Corps standards, specifically my recent NJP for violations of Article(s) 86 and 92; of the UCMJ.

20001004 :        For my pattern of misconduct. Specifically, my continued disregard of Article 86, Unauthorized absence/Absent without leave, and Article 92, failure to obey an order or regulation, which has resulted in two nonjudicial punishments and one formal counseling entry this year. Additionally, I received nonjudicial punishment earlier in the year for underage drinking. I have been advised and understand that any further infractions of the UCMJ will not be tolerated and the consequences will be severe.

Types of Documents Submitted/reviewed

 Related to Military Service:      DD 214:          Service and/or Medical Record:            Other Records:

         - Record of Trial from 21 June 2001
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):

Pertinent Regulation/Law

 A. Paragraph 1105, DISCHARGE ADJUDGED BY SENTENCE OF COURT-MARTIAL , of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16F), effective 1 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 IV, Para 403m(7)(a), Presumption Concerning Court-Martial Specifications .

C. 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 .

D. 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, Articles 86, 90, 92, and 128.


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

Applicant’s Issues

 1. Would like his Bad Conduct Discharge upgraded to Honorable based on Post Service.
2. Youth and immaturity.

Decision


 Date: 20080918   Location: Washington D.C.        R epresentation :

By a vote of the Characterization shall .
By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall Court-Martial .
Discussion
Issue 1: (Clemency) RELIEF NOT WARRANTED. The Applicant is asking for clemency and an upgrade of his characterization of service from a “Bad Conduct Discharge” to “Honorable” based on his post service accomplishments since his 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. The Applicant’s record of service was marred by six non-judicial punishments, a Special Court Martial conviction and two formal retention warning counseling’s for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 86 (UA); Article 90 (Willful disobedience of a lawful order); Article 92 (Failure to obey order/regulation); and Article 128 (Assault), and a Special Court Martial conviction. The Applicant received a “Bad Conduct Discharge” as a result of a conviction at a Special Court-Martial on 27 June 2001. The Applicant regrets his earlier misconduct and states he is now a married man with two children and an ordained minister under the Grace Christian Fellowship. He is pursuing his Bachelor of Arts degree in Christian Studies. He submits a license from the Grace Cathedral Christian Fellowship and one letter of reference, signed by Bishop Sammy Smith, also of the Grace Cathedral Ministries.

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. While the Board applauds the Applicant for being married and pursuing a degree in Christian Studies to warrant an upgrade to “Honorable” the efforts need to be more encompassing. The Applicant did not provide sufficient supporting documentation of post service accomplishments or character witness statements to support his request for an upgrade. For example, the Applicant could have produced evidence of a verifiable employment record; documentation of community/church service; marriage license; birth certification or his children, certification of non-involvement with civil authorities, evidence of financial stability, additional statements from other than church related references and a copy of his college transcripts. The Board determined clemency based on post service accomplishments would be inappropriate.

: ( ) . The Applicant feels his misconduct was due to youth and immaturity. While he may feel this was the underlying cause of his misconduct, the evidence of record does not demonstrate the Applicant was not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions due to youth or immaturity. The Applicant does not submit any evidence to show he was not culpable for his misconduct.

When the quality of a member’s service has met the standards of accepted conduct and performance of duty for military personnel, it is appropriate to characterize that service under “Honorable” conditions. Based on nature and frequency of the UCMJ violations, and the conviction by a Special Court-Martial the Applicant’s conduct and performance falls well below the accepted standards for U.S. Marines and the Board determined an upgrade would be inappropriate.

After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Medical and Service Record Entries, Discharge Process, t he 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, 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 or is referred to a court-martial 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 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 | 2008_Navy | ND0801126

    Original file (ND0801126.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant should be aware completion of these items alone does not guarantee an upgrade from an unfavorable discharge as each discharge is reviewed by the Board on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service conduct mitigates the reason for the characterization of discharge.The Applicant provided a personal statement and as evidence of post-service accomplishments. The Board determined based on the documentation provided the characterization of service received, “Under Other Than...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700318

    Original file (ND0700318.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant’s service was marred by two retention warnings, the award of six nonjudicial punishment (NJP), Article 86 (Unauthorized Absence), Article 87 (Missing Movement), and Article 92 (Disobeying a lawful order). 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 Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214 The NDRB...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1100184

    Original file (ND1100184.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant seeks an upgrade for educational benefits.2. The NDRB determined the Applicant’s medications were in no way related to the serious misconduct for which he was separated. ” 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801221

    Original file (ND0801221.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 conduct mitigates the reason for the characterization of discharge.The Applicant provided as evidence of post-service accomplishments. The Board determined an upgrade or change would be inappropriate.After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600613

    Original file (ND0600613.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests that the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance):GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, authority: MILPERSMAN, Article 1910-140 (formerly 3630600). 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700032

    Original file (ND0700032.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    19920713: Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (Violation UCMJ Article 86-UA on 19920428; Article 91-Disobey lawful order from PO1 on 19920428; Article 92-Underage drinking on 19920503; Article 134-Communicate a threat to PO1, PO2, and a SN on 19920503), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.19920714: Applicant to unauthorized absence at 0700 on 19920714.19920714: Applicant from unauthorized...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0601067

    Original file (ND0601067.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Elements of Discharge: [INVOLUNTARY] Discharge Process: Date Notified:19910522Reason for Discharge Least Favorable Characterization: Date Applicant Responded to Notification: 19910528Rights Elected at Notification:Consult with Counsel Administrative Board Obtain Copies Submit Statement(s) (date)GCMCA Review Recommendation of Commanding Officer (date): UNDATEDDischarge directed by (date):BUPERS 19910619Narrative reason directed:Characterization directed: Date Applicant Discharged: 19910702...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900979

    Original file (ND0900979.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT Applicant’s Issues 1. The Applicant provided no other documentation or further evidence in support of his request to be upgrade to “Honorable.” Issue 2: (Decisional) () . 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2013_Marine | MD1300895

    Original file (MD1300895.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Types of Documents Submitted/reviewedRelated to Military Service: DD 214:Service/Medical Record:Other Records: Related to Post-Service Period: Employment: Finances: Education/Training: Health/Medical Records: Rehabilitation/Treatment: Criminal Records: Personal Documentation: Community Service: References: Department of VA letter: Other Documentation: Additional Statements:From Applicant: From/To Representation:From/ToCongress member: Pertinent Regulation/Law A. Paragraph 6210, MISCONDUCT of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00316

    Original file (ND01-00316.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    No indication of appeal in the record.850506: USS JOHN F. KENNEDY CV-67 notified applicant of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and the commission of serious offense, to wit: assault on 22Feb85 and fail to obey a lawful general regulation on 21Apr85.850506: Applicant advised of his rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to appear before an...