Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801683
Original file (MD0801683.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

BERRY, Patrick J., 141-86-3553, ex-, USMC
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20080806
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)     20000128 - 20000221              Active:

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment: 20000222      Period of E nlistment : Years Months     Date of Discharge: 20011207
Length of Service : Y ea r M on ths 15 D a ys Education Level: Age at Enlistment: AFQT: 79
MOS: 0311/8152 Highest Rank: Fitness R eports:
Proficiency/Conduct M arks (# of occasions):       ( 5 ) / ( )
 Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214): Rifle Pistol MM

Periods of UA / CONF :

NJP :
- 20010223 : Art icle 134 ( Transferring a false ID to a minor to purchase alcohol, assuming a false identity and
 underage drinking ) , 3 specifications
 Awarded : Susp ended:

S CM :
- 20010726 : Art icle 86 (UA ), f ailure to go
Article 91 (Willfully disobey a lawful order)
 Sentence :

6105 Counseling :
- 20010703 : For conduct relating to the charges adjudged at the Summary Court-Martial on 20010726.
- 20010813 : For failure to obey orders, failure to go, dereliction of duty.

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) :
- Verification of B.A. of History from U niversity of Pennsylvania
- References
- Employment transaction
- Name change documentation


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

Applicant’s Issues
1. Reenlistment opportunity.
2. Post s ervice conduct.

Decision

 Date: 20 08 1113           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 has requested an upgrade of his discharge characterization to “Honorable” based on his post service conduct. 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 2 retention warnings, 1 NJP and 1 S CM for violations of the Uniform Co de of Military Justice (UCMJ): Articl e 86 (U A), Article 91 (Willfully disobey an order or regulation) and Article 134 (False or unauthorized pass offenses) . These violation s are considered serious offense s , punishable by a punitive discharge and confinement if adjudicated and awarded as part of a sentence by a special or general court-martial. The command did not pursue a punitive discharge but opted instead for an administrative discha rge based on a pattern of misconduct.

T he 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 u nder review, is considered during Board reviews. 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. Based on the Applicant’s post service accomplishments and good deeds, the Board determined an upgrade to “General (Under Honorable Conditions)” would be appropriate.

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. A “General (Under Honorable Conditions)” 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. An upgrade to “Honorable” was deemed inappropriate for the violations of the UCMJ conducted by the Applicant .

After a thorough review of the applicant’s service record and other evidence; such as: the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Record, Discharge Process and additional evid ence submitted by the Applicant to the Board, it was determined that relief is warranted.




Pertinent Regulation/Law

 A Ma rine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16F), Paragraph 6210, MISCONDUCT , 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 s of the UCMJ ; Article 86 (Unauthorized absence), Article 91 (Willfully disobey an order or regulation) and Article 134 ( False or unauthorized pass offenses).


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

  • NAVY | DRB | 2015_Navy | ND1401751

    Original file (ND1401751.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 (SERIOUS OFFENSE). ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1001905

    Original file (ND1001905.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. If a former member has been discharged for more than 15 years, has already been granted a personal appearance hearing or has otherwise exhausted their opportunities before the NDRB, the Applicant may petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR), 2...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900523

    Original file (ND0900523.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 Applicant DD Form 293, no documentation was provided for review. After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2014_Navy | ND1400527

    Original file (ND1400527.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant contends his post-service conduct warrants an upgrade to Honorable.The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the re-characterization of a discharge. ” 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 | ND0801804

    Original file (ND0801804.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 | ND0900242

    Original file (ND0900242.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Service benefits.4. ” 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 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.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801337

    Original file (ND0801337.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board determined based on the limited documentation provided an upgrade would be inappropriate and the characterization of service received, “General (Under 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 found ADDENDUM: Information for the...

  • USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1001069

    Original file (MD1001069.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. 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 . ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900025

    Original file (ND0900025.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant has requested an upgrade in his discharge characterization to “General (Under Honorable Conditions)” to better his life. The Board determined the characterization of service received, “Under Other Than Honorable Conditions”, was an appropriate characterization considering the time served and the numerous and varied UCMJ violations involved, and based on the lack post service documentation provided an upgrade would be inappropriate.Should the Applicant obtain additional...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801341

    Original file (ND0801341.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 additional evidence. The Board determined based on the limited documentation provided an upgrade would be...