Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801582
Original file (MD0801582.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-, USMC
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20080722
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) 20031112 - 20031228                Active:

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment: 20031229     Period of E nlistment : Years Months      Date of Discharge: 20050916
Length of Service : Year M on ths 18 D a ys         Education Level:        Age at Enlistment:
AFQT: 50          MOS: 0151         Highest Rank:    Fitness R eports:
Proficiency/Conduct M arks (# of occasions): /
Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214): Rifle

Periods of UA / CONF :

NJP :
- 20041008 : Art icle 121 ( Larceny, s t ole $100.00 from a civilian).
Awarded : Susp ended: Suspension vacated 20041013

S CMs :    SPCMs: CC:

6105 Counseling :
- 20041109 : For a pattern of misconduct, specifically, you failed to properly conduct y ourself as expected of a Marine
 by committing larceny on two separate occasions. On 20040902, while serving at the Random Vehicle
Inspection checkpoint, you stole $100.00 from a vehicle you were inspecting. On 20041103 you stole a n
NCO sword from the BN S-4 office which belonged to another Marine. Your actions are unsatisfactory
and unacceptable as a Marine.

- 20050310 : For my established pattern of misconduct as evidenced by, one nonjudicial punishment for stealing
money, a page 11 for stealing an NCO sword and most recently for not being at your appointed place of
duty on 20050220. You are also being counseled on your military appearance, and your disrespectful
attitude towards superiors, and your inability to make wise decisions for yourself both on and off duty.

- 20050727 : For operating a motor vehicle with a suspended drivers license. Specifically, on 20050718 you
knowingly and willfully operated your vehicle with a suspended driver’s license, after being counseled by
your SNCOIC not to do so. Your actions showed a disregard to the safety of others and a lack of
maturity on your behalf and your failure to follow orders.

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. Punishment was unjust.
2. Young and immature.
3. Post s ervice conduct .

Decision

 Date: 20 08 103             Location: Washington D.C .         R epresentation :

By a vote of the Characterization shall .
By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall MISCONDUCT (PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT) .
Discussion

 : ( ) RELIEF NOT WARRANTED. The Applicant claims the “ Under Other Than Honorable Conditions ” discharge he received was unfair since his only charge was driving with a suspended license. 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 . A r eview of the Applicant’s record reveals it was marred by three retention warnings for numerous discretions: for larceny on two separate occasions ; for establishing a pattern of misconduct; for not being at his appointed place of du t y ; for his military appearance; for disrespect to superiors; for his inability to make wise decisions; and for driving with a suspended license. Additionally , the Applicant was the subject of a NJP for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Art icle 121 (Larceny, stealing $100.00 from a civilian). The Manual for Courts-Martial authorizes the award of a punitive discharge and up to one year in confinement if adjudged and awarded as part of the sentence upon conviction by a special or general court-martial for violation s of the Article 121.
The Applicant has requested an upgrade in his discharge characterization to “Honorable”. An “ Honorable ” discharge is appropriate when the quality of the service member’s service has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for military personnel. An “U nder O ther T han H onorable C onditions ” discharge is warranted when the basis for separation is commission or omission of an act which constitutes a significant departure from the conduct expected of a service member. The Board acknowledges the Applicant’s conduct clearly was a significant departure from the conduct expected from a U. S. Marine and the awarded discharge was appropriate. A r eview of available records reveals nothing to indicate the Applicant’s discharge was in any way inconsistent with the standards of disc ipline in the United States Marine Corps. The Board determined that his request for an upgrade was without merit and would be inappropriate .

: ( ) . The Applicant states he has grown since the incident and has learned from his mistakes. T he Applicant was guilty of larceny not once, but twice : He was counseled and given three opportunities to learn from h is mistakes and correct his behavior. The Applicant contends his youth and immaturity mitigates his misconduct. While he may feel his youth was an un derlying cause of his infractions , the record does not demonstrate his youth or immaturity were the root causes of his misconduct and his repeated actions clearly reflect he was unfit for military service . The Board determined an upgrade would be inappropriate.

: ( ) . The Applicant states he has taken the past few year s to grow and change things to make him not just a better person, but a great person. 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 u nder review, is considered . The key word here is “Outstanding”. The Board is looking for actions that go beyond simply daily living . 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 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.

T he Applicant did not provide a personal statement, supporting documentation of post service accomplishments or character witness statements to support his request for an upgrade. The Applicant's 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 the characterization of service received, “Under Other Than Honorable Conditions”, was an appropriate characterization considering the time served and the UCMJ violations involved, and based on the limited post service documentation provided 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

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 121.




































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 or for any basis wherein an Other Than Honorable Discharge is authorized, 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 | 2010_Marine | MD1001819

    Original file (MD1001819.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The command opted to prefer the new charges of misconduct to trial by special court-martial.The stated misconduct resulted in the special court-martial awarding a punitive Bad Conduct Dischargeand confinement for 6 months.The NDRB recognizes that many of our service members are young at the time they enlist for service, however, most manage to serve their enlistment honorably. Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record...

  • USMC | DRB | 2007_Marine | MD0700206

    Original file (MD0700206.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Additionally, on 19911004 the Applicant submitted a request for administrative discharge under other than honorable conditions in lieu of trial by court-martial. (2) Steal one Government decal.Date Applicant Submitted SILT request: 19911004 Consulted with or Waived Counsel: Acknowledged Understanding Elements: Acknowledged Guilt to: Article(s) 86, 91, 92 and 121 BCD/DD authorized for offense(s) Acknowledged Consequences of OTH: Type of Characterization Requested: Commanding Officer...

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0901961

    Original file (MD0901961.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. Additionally, the NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities. Additionally, the NDRB does not have the authority to change a narrative reason for separation to one indicating a medical disability or...

  • USMC | DRB | 2013_Marine | MD1301373

    Original file (MD1301373.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Clemency denied.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entries, the record of trial by Special Court-Martial, and discharge process, the Board found that clemency was not warranted. ” 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. ...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2014_Navy | ND1400471

    Original file (ND1400471.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Representation: By a vote of the Characterization shall .By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall .Discussion The NDRB, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge, is authorized to change the character of service and the reason for discharge if such change is warranted.In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700133

    Original file (ND0700133.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    86 – [Unauthorized absence (2 specs)]; Viol of UCMJ Art 107 – (False official statement). ” 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. With respect to a discharge adjudged by a court-martial, the action of the NDRB is restricted to upgrades based on clemency.

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0900333

    Original file (MD0900333.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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0902349

    Original file (MD0902349.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. The Applicant should be aware submission of these items alone does not guarantee clemency as each discharge is reviewed by the NDRB on a case-by-case basis.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 BAD...

  • USMC | DRB | 2013_Marine | MD1300300

    Original file (MD1300300.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Clemency 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 is not eligible for further reviews by the NDRB. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the...

  • USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0600850

    Original file (MD0600850.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant’s DD Form 214 (Service 2) (2)Letter from Applicant, dtd March 27, 2006 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: USMCR (DEP) 19891219 - 19900204 COG Active: None Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 19900205 Date of Discharge: 19960701 Length of Service (years, months,...