Upgrade.Vet

USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801617

Original file (MD0801617.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-, USMC

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20080512

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)     20030519 - 20040502     Active:

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment: 20040503     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Months
Date of Discharge: 20080128      H ighest Rank:
Length of Service : Y ea rs M on ths 26 D a ys
Education Level:        AFQT: 63
MOS: 3521
Proficiency/Conduct M arks (# of occasions): /          Fitness Reports:

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      Rifle S S DM (w 1 Bronze Service Star) NDSM, ICM, GWOTSM, LOA (2)

Periods of UA / CONF : UA: 20061220-20070103 ( 15 days); 20071013-20071124 ( 42 days , 13 hours, 25 minutes )
                  CONF:

NJP:
- 20050311 :      Article 92 ( W rongfully disobey orders )
         Awarded: Suspended:

- Date NFIR:     Indicated by NAVMC 118/11 of third NJP

- 20070129 :      Article 86 ( Absence without leave)
         Awarded: Suspended:

SCM: SPCM: CC:

Retention Warning Counseling:

- 20040524: For failing to complete training for MOS 2631

- 20070214 : For my established p attern of misconduct as evidenced by receiving my third NJP on 20071030.

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

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

         “ 2004 05 03 ”
         “ UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS ”

The NDRB will recommend to the Commander, Navy Personnel Command, that the DD 214 be corrected as appropriate.

Types of Documents Submitted/reviewed

Related to Military Service:
DD 214:      Service / 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 Congress member :

Other Documentation :

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A Paragraph 6419, SEPARATION IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT-MARTIAL , 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 (UA) and Article 92 (Wrongfully disobey orders) .

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

Applicant’s Issues

1. His service in Iraq was meritorious.

Decision

Date: 20 0 9 0415 Location: Washington D.C . R epresentation :

By a vote of the Characterization shall .
By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall .

Discussion

: ( ) . The Applicant contends he is entitled t o a discharge upgrade because his service in Iraq was meritorious. 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 two retention warning, three NJPs for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 86 (UA) and Article 92 (Failure to obey a lawful order). In a court-martial specification dated 27 December 2007 t he Applicant was also charged with further violation of the UCMJ: Article 86 (UA), for more than 30 days of UA. For the edification of the Applicant, relevant and material facts stated in a court-martial specification are presumed by the NDRB to be established facts. Violations of Article 86 for more than 30 days is considered a serious offense, punishable by punitive discharge and confinement if adjudicated and awarded by a special or general court-martial. The command elected to accept the Applicant’s request for an “Under Other Than Honorable” conditions discharge in lieu of trial a by court-martial for the Article 86 violation mentioned above. The Applicant consulted with counsel and was fully advised of the implications of his request. The Applicant understood that if discharged under other than honorable conditions, it might deprive him of virtually all veterans' benefits based upon his current enlistment, and that he might expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life in situations wherein the type of service rendered in any branch of the Armed Forces, or the character of discharge received there from may have a bearing. The Applicant’s commanding officer stated he “cannot be relied upon, takes time and resources to care for, and has demonstrated an inability to abide by rules & regs.” While the Applicant may feel his time served in Iraq was meritorious, it is not his deployed time which is in question but rather his conduct in garrison. 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, 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 | MD0801028

Original file (MD0801028.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall COURT-MARTIAL.Discussion :().With respect to a discharge adjudged by a court-martial case, the action of the NDRB is restricted to upgrades based on clemency (leniency). ” 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. Additionally, the NDRB does not have the authority to change a narrative...
USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0800784

Original file (MD0800784.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT Applicant’s Issues 1. Furthermore, the NDRB notes the Applicant’s previous request for clemency filed on 22 November 2004 does not mention PTSD as the basis for that clemency request. After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Service and Medical Record Entries, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, t
USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0800823

Original file (MD0800823.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT Applicant’s Issues 1. The Board determined the characterization of service that he is being upgraded to, “General (Under Honorable Conditions)”, is an appropriate characterization considering the length of service and the UCMJ violations involved, and based on the limited post service documentation provided. ” Additional Reviews : Subsequent to a document review, former members are eligible for a...
USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0900032

Original file (MD0900032.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Board determined the awarded discharge characterization was appropriate and an upgrade would be 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 lack of post service documentation provided an upgrade...
USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0800830

Original file (MD0800830.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The NDRB determined the issues invoked in the Applicant’s clemency request had been properly considered by the SPCM which heard her case and reviewed by the Navy-Marine Corps Appellate Review Activity; clemency founded upon the issues presented would be inappropriate.After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Service and Medical Record Entries, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found clemency was not...
USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0900387

Original file (MD0900387.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT MARTIAL.Discussion :().The Applicant contends he received “double jeopardy” for traffic violations. Violation of Article 112a is one such offense requiring mandatory separation regardless of time in service or grade. 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...
USMC | DRB | 2007_Marine | MD0700819

Original file (MD0700819.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, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found that Summary of ServicePrior Service: Inactive: USMCR (DEP)20010810 - 20011209Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 20011210Years Contracted:Date of Discharge:20050513Length of Service: 03 Yrs 05Mths04 DysLost Time:Days UA: Days Confined: 46 Days IHCA: 09Education...
USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0900204

Original file (MD0900204.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

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...
USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801846

Original file (MD0801846.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

As documentation supporting post service, the Applicant only provided documentation that were service and medical related while he was in the Marine Corps. The Board determined the characterization of service received, “Bad Conduct Discharge”, was an appropriate characterization considering the length of service and the UCMJ violations involved, and based on the lack of post service documentation provided, clemency would be inappropriate.After a thorough review of the available evidence, to...
USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801486

Original file (MD0801486.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant contends his discharge should be upgraded based on his record of service which was good apart from a single period of misconduct. 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 Pertinent Regulation/Law A. Paragraph 6210, MISCONDUCT of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO...

Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801617

Similar Decisions