Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801383
Original file (MD0801383.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-, USMC
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20080612
Characterization of Service Received:
Narrative Reason for Discharge: -COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE
Authority for Discharge: MARCORSEPMAN

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

Summary of Service
Prior Service:
Inactive: USMCR (DEP) 19990611 - 20000604                Active:          20000605 - 20031006

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment: 20031007     Period of E nlistment : Years ( Months -Extension) Date of Discharge: 20070907
Length of Service : Y ea rs M on ths 03 D a ys        Education Level:        Age at Enlistment:      AFQT: 46
MOS: 0151 Highest Rank: Fitness R eports:
Proficiency/Conduct M arks (# of occasions):       /
Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214): Rifle Pistol (2) (2) CoC MM (3) CoA

Periods of UA / CONF :

NJPs :
20070628 : Art icle 90 (Willfully disobeying superior commissioned officer).
Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation) , 2 specifications,
Article 134 (Adultery).
Awarded : . Susp ended : .

6105 Counseling :
20070628 : For your recent NJP held on 20070628 for violations of Article 90, 90 (2 specifications), and 134 of the
 UCMJ. Applicant is informed that this type of action in hise Marine Corps career may cause adverse
reaction regarding retention.

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

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

         “ CONTINUOUS HONORABLE SERVICE FROM 000605 TO 031006 ”

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) :


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

Applicant’s Issues

 1. Inequitable discharge based on one isolated incident .

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

 : ( ) . The Applicant contends his discharge was inequitable and should be upgraded based on his record of service which was good apart from a single period of misconduct. For the edification of the Applicant despite a Marine’s prior record of se rvice certain serious offenses, even though isolated, warrant separation from the n aval service in order to maintain proper order and discipline. 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 a retention warning for violation of the U niform C ode of M ilitary J ustice, Articles 90, 92 (two specifications) and 134 ; these violations reflected willful disobedience of a commissioned officer, failure to obey an order, and adultery. Violations of these Articles 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.

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, the Applicant failed to provide any additional statements or evidence of post service accomplishments. To warrant an upgrade 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 limited documentation provided an upgrade would be inappropriate and the characterization of service received, “Under Other Than Honorable Conditions”, was an appropriate characterization considering the time served and the UCMJ violation involved.

 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 P1900.16E), 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 90, Willfully disobeying superior commissioned officer; Article 92 ( x2 ) , Failure to obey order or regulation and Article 134, Adultery .


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 | 2008_Navy | ND0801757

    Original file (ND0801757.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board determined the awarded discharge characterization was appropriate and 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 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2015_Marine | MD1500128

    Original file (MD1500128.rtf) Auto-classification: 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 remain GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS) and the narrative reason for separation shall remain MISCONDUCT. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application is received...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0800811

    Original file (MD0800811.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Sentence – RIR - to E4, FOP, CONF CC:6105 Counseling: 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) DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL...

  • USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0600971

    Original file (MD0600971.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    20030923: Commanding Officer, Marine Corps Recruiting Station New Jersey, ordered Applicant to return to his appointed place of duty and execute his duties as a Marine Corps recruiter.20030923: Sergeant Major, Recruiting Station New Jersey, statementwitnessing the Applicant’s refusal to recruit.20031002: Charge preferred for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) Article 90: Willfully disobey a lawful order from superior commissioned officer.20031021: Commanding Officer,...

  • USMC | DRB | 2007_Marine | MD0700965

    Original file (MD0700965.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant’s service was marred bythreeretention warnings, two nonjudicial punishments (NJP), and a Summary Courts-Martial for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), Article 90 (Willfully disobeying a superior commissioned officer), Article 92 (Willfully disobeying a lawful order), Article 107 (False official statement), and Article 134 (Restriction Breaking) and Article 134 (Adultery). After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801554

    Original file (MD0801554.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 92 (Failure to obey orders or regulations), and Article 134 (Adultery). With a vote of 5-0,the Board found the discharge was proper but not equitable in that the violations were limited enough to rate a “General (Under Honorable Conditions)” rather than the awarded “Under Other Than Honorable...

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0900195

    Original file (MD0900195.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant did not specific any issues for the NDRB to review. ” 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0800718

    Original file (ND0800718.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    From Representation: From Member of Congress: Other Documentation (Describe) DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT Applicant’s Issues 1. The Applicant’s service record is marred by an award of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) Article 92 (Failure to obey an order or regulation) and Article 134 (Adultery); thus substantiating the misconduct (commission of a serious offense) for...

  • USMC | DRB | 2012_Marine | MD1200936

    Original file (MD1200936.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. ” 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 reenlistment opportunities.

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801415

    Original file (MD0801415.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The three member administrative board returned findings of misconduct by a vote of 2-1, by a vote of 3-0 that the misconduct warranted separation, and by a vote of 3-0 that the separation should be characterized as “Under Other Than Honorable ” . The Board determined 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 found ADDENDUM:...