Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801518
Original file (MD0801518.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-, USMC
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20080706
Characterization of Service Received:
Narrative Reason for Discharge: completion of required active service
Authority for Discharge: MARCORSEPMAN

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

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive: USMCR (DEP) 19970630 - 19970810                Active:

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment: 19979811     Period of E nlistment : Years Months     Date of Discharge: 20010818
Length of Service : Y ea rs M on ths 07 D a ys         Education Level: AFQT: 40       MOS: 2512
Age at Enlistment: 18 or (Birth dates change on medical records. No birth certificate )
Highest Rank: Fitness R eports:
Proficiency/Conduct M arks (# of occasions): ( ) / ( )
 Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214): Rifle Pistol Coast Guard MUC

Periods of UA / CONF : UA: 19971227 – 1 99712 27 (3 minutes)
20010221 – 20010225 (4 days)
20010512 – 20010514 (2 days)
20010625 – 20010626 (1 day)

NJPs : 4
199912 02 : Art icle 91 (I nsubordination to a NCO )
Article 92 (D ereliction in performance of duties )
Awarded : Susp ended:

20001127: Article 92 ( D riving after consuming alcohol on Base)
 Awarded : RIR EPD RESTR
 Susp ended : NONE
20010601 : Article 86 (UA) 20010512-20010514
 Awarded: EPD RESTR
 Susp ended: NONE
2001070 6 : Art icle 86 (UA) 20010624 – 20010626
Awarded :
Susp ended:

S CM :
20010422 : Art icle 86 (U A), f rom 21 Feb 01 – 25 Feb 01
Article 91 (Insubordinate conduct), 2 specifications:
- Spec ification 1: Assault on a NCO
 - Spec ification 2: Disrespectful language to a NCO
Article 92 (Failure to obey ), d riving with a suspended license
 Article 134 (Drunk and disorderly)
 Sentence: , RST (60 days), FOP Suspended: FOP
        

CC:
19990216: Offense: DUI Civilian Court
 Sentence: Unknown
20010117 : Offense: DUI/HIT AND RUN San Diego Civilian Court .
Sentence :
         - 365 days confinement for DUI (suspended)
 - 180 days confinement for HIT AND RUN (suspended)
- 96 hours confinement (suspended)
 - 5 years probation
- $2500.00 fine
- Attend MAADD Class
- 25 days Community Servic e
- Installation of Ignition Breath Intoxilyzer
- V isit Assessment Counselor at San Diego Court House

6105 Counseling :
19990223 : For DUI off Base
         20001 115: For driving after consuming alcohol
         20010118: DUI/Hit and Run off Base .      

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. Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16E), effective 18 August 1995 until
31 August 2001, Paragraph 1005, DISCHARGE FOR EXPIRATION OF ENLISTMENT OR FULFILLMENT OF SERVICE OBLIGATION .
B . 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 s 91, 92 and 134.


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

Applicant’s Issues

 1. Wants education benefits.
2. Did not know the ty pe of discharge he was getting .
3. Believes he deserves an HONORABLE because he served overseas.

Decision


 Date : 20 08 1003             Location: Washington D.C .         R epresentation :

By a vote of the Characterization shall .
By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall COMPLETION OF REQUIRED ACTIVE SERVICE .
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 , regarding .

: ( ) . The Applicant claims he did not fully understand the type of discharge he was receiving upon reaching his End of Active 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 . Despite the fact the Applicant’s record was marred by 4 non-judicial punishments, 3 retention counseling warnings, 3 civilian convictions for DUI, and a summary court-martial , the Applicant was allowed to remain on active duty until the end of his enlistment contract. The Applicant’s numerous violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) represented repeated unauthorized absences, insubor dinate conduct, dereliction of duty, driving while intoxicated, failure to obey an order or regulation, and drunk and disorderly conduct. The civilian convictions were the result of drunk driving and hit and run. All of t hese violations are serious in nature a nd could have easily resulted in a punitive discharge and confinement if adjudicated and awarded as part of a sentence at a special or general court-martial. The command did not pursue a punitive discharge ; in fact , the record indicates for whatever reason the command did not even pursue an administrative discharge for such grievous and repeated misconduct. Since the Applicant was not administratively separated, there is no record of counseling concerning the character of discharge he was recommended for by his chain of command. However, all Marines are required to attend Separations Seminars wherein VA representatives or USMC Separations personnel explain the benefits associated with each characterization of discharge. T he Applicant signed his DD214 which clearly states in block 24 he was to receive a “ G eneral (U nder H onorable C onditions ) ” . If the Applicant did not understand the character of his discharge, it was his responsibility to ask the appropriate questions when he signed his DD214. Prior to his release from active duty, h e had several opportunities to learn or inquire about the type of discharge he was to receive. The Applicant produces no evidence he was denied access to these opportunities.

W hen 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 “H onorable ” conditions. The Applicant’s misconduct, represented by 4 non-judicial punishments, 3 retention warnings, 2 civilian convictions for DUI, and a summary court-martial does not meet the standards of accepted conduct and performance for a U. S. Marine. The Board determined an upgrade would be inappropriate.
: ( ) . The Applicant feels he ra tes an HONORABLE discharged based on his overseas service. Where a Marine geographically serves has no impact on the type of discharge he receives. As stated in the above paragraph, w hen the quality of a service member has met the standards of accepted conduct and performance of duty for military personnel, it is appropriate to characterize that service under “Honorable” conditions. The Applicant received a “General (Under Honorable Conditions)”. This discharge is appropriate if the member’s service has been honest and faithful , but significant negative aspects of the member’s conduct or performance outweighs positive aspects of the member’s military record. The Applicant’s record was marred by 4 non-judicial punishments, 3 retention warnings, 2 civilian convictions for DUI, and a summary court-martial. T he Applicant could have been processed for an administrative separation under a

Pattern of Misconduct , or Commission of a Serious Offense , where he could have received an “ Under Other Than Honorable ” d ischarge. The Applicant plead guilty to repeated violations of UCMJ Articles 86, 91, 92 and 134. Violation of Article 91 alone is considered a serious offense, for which if adjudicated as part of the sentence upon conviction by a special or general court-martial, is punishable by a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge and up to three years imprisonment. Based on the Applicant’s clear record of repeated misconduct over his four years of active duty, an Honorable discharge was not warranted. The Board determined an upgrade or change 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: 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 | 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1100647

    Original file (MD1100647.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I have reviewed the Senior Member’s report and agree with the board’s findings and recommendations that (the Applicant) be discharged from the United States Marine Corps with an other than honorable conditions characterization of service.’ ” On 10 Jul 2009, the Separation Authority concurred with the findings and recommendations of the Admin Board and directed that the Applicant be separated from the Marine Corps with an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge due to Misconduct...

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0900355

    Original file (MD0900355.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board determined the awarded discharge characterization was appropriate and an upgrade wouldbe inappropriate.The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. The Board determined the characterization of service received, “Under Other Than Honorable Conditions”, was an appropriate characterization considering the length of service and the UCMJ violations involved, and based on the limited post service documentation provided an upgrade...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1200558

    Original file (ND1200558.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant seeks to change his RE code to RE-1 and possibly reenlist.2. 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0900070

    Original file (MD0900070.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 accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member’s overall character.Besides the Applicants statement on DD Form 293, he only provided a reference of employment on his behalf to show his post-service efforts. ...

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0902169

    Original file (MD0902169.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. He was twice arrested for underage possession of alcohol (received an enlistment waiver) and continued heavy regular use of alcohol following enlistment. ” 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1201525

    Original file (ND1201525.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    With two NJPs and a civilian arrest in his current enlistment, the Applicant met the requirements for administrative separation for Misconduct (Serious Offense) and Misconduct (Pattern of Misconduct).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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0800820

    Original file (MD0800820.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Vacated 20010307.SCMs: 1 20010518: Article 92 (Failure to obey order), 3specifications, Article 95 (Fleeing apprehension), Article 134 (Breaking restriction).Sentence - RIR (E2), FOP ($300 for 1 month), Confinement (29 days). 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801960

    Original file (MD0801960.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall COURT-MARTIAL.Discussion :().The Applicant contends he deserves better than a “Bad Conduct” discharge after serving many years in the Marine Corps and taking part in Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003. ” 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. If a former member has been discharged for...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0800963

    Original file (MD0800963.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT Applicant’s Issues 1. In reviewing discharges, the Board 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 the discharge was proper and equitable. ” Additional Reviews : Subsequent to a document review, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing,...