Upgrade.Vet

USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801310

Original file (MD0801310.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-, USMC

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20080528
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) 20040719 - 20040920                Active:

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment: 20040921      Period of E nlistment : Years Months      Date of Discharge: 20060327
Length of Service : Y ea rs M on ths 07 D a ys         Education Level:         Age at Enlistment:       AFQT: 93
MOS: 4341         Highest Rank:    Fitness R eports:
Proficiency/Conduct M arks (# of occasions):       ( ) / ( )
Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214): Rifle

Periods of UA / CONF :

NJPs :
20050728 : Art icle 86 (Fail to go at time prescribed to appointed place of duty).
Article 92 (Violate a lawful general order by wrongfully viewing a pornographic website on 20050625, 20050626, 20050714, and 20050718 ).
         Awarded : . Susp ended: .

6105 Counseling :
20050728 : For unauthorized absence. Specifically, on or about 0820, 20050708, failed to go at the time prescribed to
appointed place of duty.

20050729 : For unauthorized absence and failure to obey a lawful order. Specifically, on or about 20050625,
20050626, 20050714, and 20050718, you violated a lawful general order by wrongfully viewing a
pornographic website .

20051215 : For failure to go at the time prescribed to appointed place of duty on 0600, 20051108.

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. Reenlistment opportunities
2. Inequitable characterization for separation

Decision

Date: 20 08 0918 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 paragraph concerning s , regarding .

: ( ) . The Applicant contends his discharge characterization was ine quitable and unduly harsh with regards to the offenses he committed. 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 a non-judicial punishment and t hree retention warning s . The Applicant was awarded a non-judicial punishment for vio lation s of the U niform C ode of M ilitary J ustice , Article 86 (Unauthorized absence) and Article 92 (Failure to obey an order or regulation ). These specific violation s are punishable by a bad conduct or di shonorable discharge and up to 1 year of imprisonment if adjudicated by a special or general court-martial. The command did not pursue a punitive discharge but opted for an administrative discharge instead.

An “Under Other Than Honorable Conditions” 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 pattern of misconduct, established by the three retention warning s and an NJP all over a six month period , constitute the significant negative aspect of his career and was the basis for his discharge from the service.

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 . Supporting documentation to help support a post service conduct upgrade includes, but is not limited to: a verifiable continuous employment record; 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 company’s or other financial institutions; documentation of a drug free lifestyle; and character witness statements. 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.

Besides the personal statement provided on the DD Form-293 stating the issue s , the Applicant failed to provide any additional statements or evidence of post service accomplishments. To warrant an upgrade to “Honorable ” the Applicant’s post service efforts need to be more encompassing. 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 based on the lack of post service documentation provided the characterization of service received, “Under Other Than Honorable Conditions”, was an appropriate characterization considering the limited time served and the UCMJ violation s involved , and that an upgrade would be inappropriate.

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 fou nd

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A. Paragraph 6210, MISCONDUCT , 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 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 , Unauthorized absence and Article 92, Failure to obey order or regulation.

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 | ND0900056

Original file (ND0900056.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Furthermore, the Board determined the characterization of service received, “General (Under Honorable Conditions)”, was an appropriate characterization of service, even in light of the lack of details regarding the Applicant’s continued misconduct; 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 ADDENDUM: Information...
NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700724

Original file (ND0700724.doc) 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 Prior Service: Inactive: USNR (DEP) 20020226 - 20030624 Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 20030624 Years Contracted: ; Extension: Date of Discharge: 20050712 Length of Service: 02 Yrs 00 Mths 19 Dys Lost Time: Days UA: 430 Days...
NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1000570

Original file (ND1000570.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant's misconduct is clearly documented.After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, NDRB discerned no impropriety in the discharge action or the characterization of the Applicant’s service. 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...
USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1001968

Original file (MD1001968.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

” 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. If a former member has been discharged for more than 15 years, has already been granted a personal appearance hearing or has otherwise exhausted their opportunities before the NDRB, the Applicant may petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR), 2...
NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700077

Original file (ND0700077.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Elements of Discharge: [SEPARATION IN LIEU OF TRIAL] Date Charge(s) Preferred: 20050609Charges and Specifications:Article 86: (3 specs), Unauthorized absenceDate Applicant Submitted SILT request: 20050613 Consulted with or Waived Counsel: Waived Acknowledged Understanding Elements: Acknowledged Guilt to: Charges preferred - Article 86 (unauthorized absence) BCD/DD authorized for offense(s) YES Acknowledged Consequences of OTH: Type of Characterization Requested: Commanding Officer...
NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900095

Original file (ND0900095.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to: Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive: USNR (DEP)19930812 - 19940626Active: 19940627 – 19960627 USN 19960628 - 20020627 Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 20020628Age at Enlistment:Period of Enlistment:NFIRDate of Discharge:20071015Highest Rank/Rate:MM1Length of Service: 13 Years Months20 DaysEducation Level:AFQT: NFIREvaluationMarks:Performance:3.8(5)Behavior:3.6(5)OTA: 3.86Awards and...
NAVY | DRB | 2015_Navy | ND1500898

Original file (ND1500898.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/To Congress member: Types of Witnesses Who Testified In reviewing...
NAVY | DRB | 2014_Navy | ND1400518

Original file (ND1400518.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant seeks education benefits.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 purpose of enhancing...
USMC | DRB | 2007_Marine | MD0700303

Original file (MD0700303.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

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 the award of three retention warnings and one nonjudicial punishments (NJP) for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), Article 112a (Wrongful use of controlled substance). Discharge Process Date Notified: 20050801Basis for Discharge: DUE TO: Least Favorable Characterization: Commanding Officer’s Intended...
NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0902459

Original file (ND0902459.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Board determined the Applicant’s conduct, a unauthorized absence of almost 5 months and missing a ship’s movement, which formed the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflected a significant departure from the conduct expected of a service member and the awarded characterization was appropriate; an upgrade would be inappropriate.The NDRB opined that the administrative board took into account the Applicant’s record of service and family issues when it made its...

Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801310

Similar Decisions