Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801830
Original file (MD0801830.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-, USMC
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20080819
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) 20020917 - 20030803                Active:

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment: 20030804     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Months
Date of Discharge: 20060315      H ighest Rank:
Length of Service : Y ea rs M on ths 12 D a ys
Education Level:        AFQT: 68
MOS: 2111
Proficiency/Conduct M arks (# of occasions): ( NFIR) / ( NFIR ) Fitness R eports:

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214): Rifle Pistol

Periods of UA / CONF : NJP: SCM: SPCM: CC:

Retention Warning Counseling :

- 20040709 : For lack of initiative and judgment.

- 20040913 : For assignment to Marine Corps Body Composition Program (BCP).

- 20050125 : For failure to properly progress in BCP.

- 20050923 : For failure to maintain technical proficiency as an infantry weapons repairer.

- 20051103 : For your technical incompetence which resulted in an administrative reduction at a Competency Review Board held on 17 October 2005.

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 :


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

Applicant’s Issues

 1. Education benefits.
2 . Record of service.
3 . Medical issues prevented him from performing physical fitness training .
4. Reassigned from primary duties due to Command’s perception of “integrity issue” with Applicant.

Decision


 Date: 20 08 1211   Location: Washington D.C .        R epresentation :

By a vote of the Characterization shall .
By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall UNSATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE .
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 states his DD-214 indicates he did not contribute to the Veteran’s Education Assistance Program (VEAP), but states he did contribute to the Montgomery GI Bill. The Applicant’s DD-214 is correct as written . The Montgomery GI Bill replaced VEAP before the Applicant enlisted, so the Applicant was not eligible for VEAP. The Applicant is directed to contact the Defense Finance and Auditing Service at 1-888-332-7411 for information regarding access to contributions for the Montgomery GI Bill.

: ( ) . The Applicant contends he is entitled to a discharge upgrade due to his record of 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. The Applicant’s record of service was marred by failure to satisfactorily complete the Marine Corps Body Composition Program (BCP) after nine-months, reduction in rank to Private First Class at a Competency R eview Board (CRB) for “ technical incompetence ” , and a record of declining Proficiency and Conduct marks during the final year of the Applicant’s service. For the edification of the Applicant, a “General (Under Honorable Conditions)” characterization of service 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 NDRB determined the characterization was appropriate based on the Applicant’s record of service; an upgrade would be inappropriate.

: ( ) . The Applicant contends he is entitled to a discharge upgrade due to medical problems which interfered with his abilit y to perform physical training “on several different occasions …” The NDRB rejects the Applicant’s contention because t he record of evidence does not support the Applicant’s claims . The Applicant was assigned to the BCP for more than nine months. During this period he was evaluated on 5 May 2005 and 7 February 2006 by a competent military medical authority who certified the Applicant’s body composition was not due to a medical condition and he was fit to participate in the Remedial Physical Conditioning Program. The NDRB determined the awarded discharge characterization was appropriate; an upgrade would be inappropriate.
: ( ) . The Applicant contends he is entitled to a discharge upgrade due to his
Command’s assumption his failure to participate in physical training was an “integrity issue.” Specifically, the Applicant contends this resulted in his being assigned outside of his primary duties and then to his discharge for “Unsatisfactory Performance.” The NDRB again rejects the Applicant’s contention. As discussed above under Issue 2, the Applicant was


relieved from his duties and reduced in rank due to his unsatisfactory performance of his duties ; the Applicant was also made subject to a Comp e tency Review Board due to poor performance in his primary duties and was determined to be technically incompetent. The NDRB det ermined 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

Pertinent Regulation/Law

 A. Paragraph 6206, UNSATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE , 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 .



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 | 2007_Marine | MD0700997

    Original file (MD0700997.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)20000923 - 20010710Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 20010711Years Contracted:Date of Discharge:20040326Length of Service: 02 Yrs 08Mths15 DysLost Time:Days UA: Days Confined: Education Level:Age at...

  • USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0500755

    Original file (MD0500755.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The basis for discharge is the Applicant's failure to meet standards for weight control and body fat composition. Commanding Officer's comments: "Based on Lance Corporal C_'s (Applicant's) failure to meet the Marine Corps Standards for weight control and body fat, it is requested that he be separated from the Marine Corps with a general discharge." The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge to the extent such matters provide a basis for...

  • USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0600580

    Original file (MD0600580.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The unit’s Remedial Physical Conditioning Program (RCCP) for 6 months.030702: Counseling: Advised of deficiencies in performance and conduct (reassignment to the Marine Corps BCP, specifically, failed to properly maintain body fat composition standards as required by MCO P6100.12 for a second time), advised that this subsequent assignment is for a 6-month period, necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, discharge warning (for either weight control or...

  • USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0600170

    Original file (MD0600170.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant failed to meet the Marine Corps’ body composition standards and will receive a 6105 counseling entry and be processed for administrative separation.050210: Counseling: Advised of deficiencies in performance and conduct (Failure to meet the Marine Corps body composition standards while assigned to the Marine Corps Body Composition Program (BCP) for the second time. ), necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, and advised being processed for...

  • USMC | DRB | 2012_Marine | MD1201652

    Original file (MD1201652.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to: Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive:USMCR (DEP)20060620 - 20070610Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Current Enlistment: 20070611Age at Enlistment: Period of Enlistment: Years MonthsDate of Discharge:20110809Highest Rank:Length of Service: Year(s)Month(s)29 Day(s)Education Level: AFQT:53MOS: 5811Proficiency/Conduct Marks (# of occasions):()/()Fitness Reports: Awards and Decorations (per DD...

  • USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1101781

    Original file (MD1101781.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to: Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive:USMCR (DEP)20060804 - 20060917Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Current Enlistment: 20060918Age at Enlistment: Period of Enlistment: Years13 MonthsDate of Discharge:20101027Highest Rank:Length of Service: Year(s)Month(s)10 Day(s)Education Level: AFQT:51MOS: 6046Proficiency/Conduct Marks (# of occasions):()/()Fitness Reports: Awards and Decorations (per DD...

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0900919

    Original file (MD0900919.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.Lost his education benefits. Per the Medical Officer, Marine Wing Communications Squadron 38 letter 6100 MO of 17 July 2007, the Applicant’s “present body composition status is not due to an underlying cause or associated disease.” The Applicant provided no documentation to counter the medical officer’s diagnosis or the Marine Corps body composition standards.Summary: After a...

  • USMC | DRB | 2007_Marine | MD0700232

    Original file (MD0700232.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After complete review of the entire record, including the evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board determined that the discharge was appropriate and the evidence of post-service conduct did not mitigate the conduct which precipitated the discharge.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. After a thorough review of...

  • USMC | DRB | 2014_Marine | MD1401157

    Original file (MD1401157.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. Based on the Applicant’s unsatisfactory performance on BCP, command administratively processed for separation. ” 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.

  • USMC | DRB | 2014_Marine | MD1400310

    Original file (MD1400310.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Types of Documents Submitted/reviewedRelated to Military Service: DD 214:Service/Medical Record:Other Records: Related to Post-Service Period: Employment: Finances: Education/Training: Health/Medical Records: Rehabilitation/Treatment: Criminal Records: Personal Documentation: Community Service: References: Department of VA letter: Other Documentation: Additional Statements:From Applicant: From/To Representation:From/ToCongress member: DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD...