Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801380
Original file (MD0801380.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-, USMC
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20080610
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) 20041020 - 20050109                Active:

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment: 20050110      Period of E nlistment : Years Months      Date of Discharge: 20051118
Length of Service : Y ea rs M on ths 09 D a ys         Education Level:         Age at Enlistment:       AFQT: 45
MOS: 3300         Highest Rank:    Fitness R eports:
Proficiency/Conduct M arks (# of occasions):       ( ) / ( )
 Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214): Rifle Pistol

Periods of UA / CONF :

NJPs :
20050516 : Art icle 86 ( Unauthorized absence ), from 1500 20050426 to 1400 2005050 4 (7 days, 23 hours).
Awarded : . Susp ended: .

20050628: Article 86 (Unauthorized absence ), from 2045 20050604 to 2040 20050622 (17 days ).
Awarded : . Susp ended: .

20051025 : Article 80 (Attempted larceny of private funds) , 2 specifications;
Article 121 ( Larceny of private funds) , 4 specifications .
Awarded : . Susp ended: .

6105 Counseling :
20050630 : For violation of Article 86 (20050426-20050504) in that you absented you rself from your appointed place
 of duty without proper authority.

20050630 : For violation of Article 86 (20050604-20050622) in t ha t you absented you rself from your appointed place
of duty without proper authority.

20051025 : For violation of Art icle 80 (2 specifications) attempted larceny of private funds and Article 121 (4
specifications) larceny of private funds.

20051104 : For violation of Article 134 , break ing restriction.









Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

The NDRB did note administrative error(s) on the original DD Form 214:

          “ 2005 01 10 ”
         “ MARCORSEPMAN 6210.3 ”

The NDRB will recommend to the Commandant of the Marine Corps that the DD 214 be corrected as appropriate.

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) :

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 80 and 121.



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

Applicant’s Issues

 1. Reenlistment opportunities.

Decision


 Date: 20080918             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 did not submit any issues which the NDRB c ould consider during a discharge review . Nonetheless, the Board did conduct a review of the Applicant’s case to ensure the discharge process was in accordance with established procedures , proper , and equitable . 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 is marred by four retention warnings and three NJPs for violation of the U niform C ode of Military J ustice (UCMJ) , Articles 80, 86, and 121 in a period of less than one year . Violations of Articles 80 and 121 are considered serious offenses, punishable by punitive discharge and confinement if adjudicated by a special or general court-martial. The command did not pursue a punitive discharge but opted instead for an administrative discharge.

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 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 | 2008_Marine | MD0801692

    Original file (MD0801692.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.Besides the personal statement provided on the DD Form-293, the Applicant failed to provide any other supporting documents in his behalf. The Board determined the characterization of service received, “Under...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900638

    Original file (ND0900638.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant did not complete his enlistment and therefore his request to have his official discharge documentation reflect otherwise is without merit.The Board determined the awarded discharge was appropriate for the offenses committed and the narrative reason was correct as issued; an upgrade would be inappropriate. ” 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0800412

    Original file (ND0800412.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Types of Documents SubmittedRelated 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) Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214 The NDRB did note...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801456

    Original file (MD0801456.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, Court-Martial proceedings, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found clemency was not warranted and the sentence awarded the Applicant at his court-martial was appropriate for the offenseshe committed. The Board determined based on the lack of documentation provided clemency was not warranted and an upgrade would be...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0800961

    Original file (MD0800961.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s Request: Characterization change to: Narrative Reason change to: Summary of ServicePrior Service: Inactive: USMCR (DEP) 19910628 - 19920309 Active: 19920310 - 19951212 Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 19951213Period of enlistment: Years Months Date of Discharge: 19990809Length of Service: Yrs Mths00 Dys Education Level: Age at Enlistment: AFQT: 35MOS: 7041Highest Rank: Fitness reports: Proficiency/Conduct marks (# of occasions): ()/ ()Awards and Decorations...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1201455

    Original file (ND1201455.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    With multiple serious UCMJ violations (Articles 92, 107, and 121) in less than 11 months of service, the Applicant met the requirements for administrative separation for Misconduct (Serious Offense) and warranted an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions characterization of service.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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801679

    Original file (ND0801679.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0901704

    Original file (ND0901704.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The NDRB determined the Applicant met the requirements for separation by reason of misconduct – pattern of misconduct and the awarded characterization of service was warranted.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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900305

    Original file (ND0900305.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Should the Applicant feel at some later time his post-service conduct is worthy of personally presenting to the NDRB there are organizations, such as the American Legion, Disabled American Veterans, etc., willing to provide guidance and assistance in preparing such a presentation.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 for...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900020

    Original file (ND0900020.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Without documentation, further explanation or justification for the narrative reason change the Board determined it would be inappropriate.After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Record Entries, and Discharge Process, 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...