Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801876
Original file (MD0801876.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-, USMC
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20080915
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) 20001020 - 20010826                Active:

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment: 20010827     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Months
Date of Discharge: 20050321      H ighest Rank:
Length of Service : Y ea rs M on ths 2 3 D a ys
Education Level:        AFQT: 68
MOS: 3531
Proficiency/Conduct M arks (# of occasions): / Fitness R eports:

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214): Rifle SS

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

NJP:
- 20020522 :       Article 121 ( Larceny)
         Article 123 (Forgery)
         Awarded : Susp ended:

- 20040729 :       Article 92 ( Dereliction in performance of duties )
         Article 12 1 ( Larceny )
         Awarded : Susp ended:

- 20041020 : Article 121 (Larceny)
         Awarded : Susp ended:

Retention Warning Counseling :

- 200040730 : For lack of integrity and core values by wrongfully stealing CD’s from the Main PX

- 20041201 : For your demonstrated deficiencies and your failure to adhere to and follow rules and regulations

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:       

Related to Post-Service Period (cont) :

         Family/Personal Status:                   Community Service:                References:              
Additional Statements :
From Applicant:         From Representat ion :   From Congress member :

Other Documentation :

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 s 92 and 123.



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

Applicant’s Issues

 1. Record of service.
2. Administrative separation board was not unbiased.
3. Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) diagnosis.

Decision


 Date: 20 0 9 0114   Location: Washington D.C .        R epresentation :

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

 : ( ) . The Applicant contends he is entitled to a discharge upgrade due to his record of service. For the edification of the Applicant, d espite a Marine’s prior record of se rvice certain serious offenses, even though isolate d, warrant separation from the n aval service in order to maintain proper order and discipline. 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 warnings and three NJPs for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 92 (Dereliction in the performance of duties); Article 121 (Larceny); and Article 123 (Forgery). Violation of Article 92 or Article 123 is considered a serious offense, punishable by punitive discharge and confinement if adjudicated and awarded by a special or general court-martial. The command did not pursue a punitive discharge but instead opted for an administrative discharge. The Board determined the awarded discharge characterization was appropriate for the number and seriousness of the offenses and a n upgrade founded upon the Applicant’s record of service would be inappropriate.

: ( ) . The Applicant contends he is entitled to a discharge upgrade because his Administrative Separation Board was not comprised of unbiased members. T he NDRB notes neither the Applicant nor his legal counsel filed a letter of deficiency following the board hearing. If the Applicant did not feel his board hearing was fair at the time of the hearing, he should have submitted a letter of deficiency for consideration by the separating authority determining the Applicant’s case. Furthermore, the Applicant has not submitted any credible evidence that supports his claim. The NDRB therefore rejects the Applicant’s contention. Any concerns of inequity by the Administrative Separation Board should have been addressed at the time of the board. The NDRB determined the awarded discharge characterization was appropriate for the number and seriousness of the offenses and an upgrade founded upon the Administrative Separation Board not being comprised of unbiased members would be inappropriate at this time.

: ( ) . The Applicant also submitted evidence of medical treatment through the Veteran’s Administration (VA) with his DD-293 Application. Although not expressly requested, the NDRB reviewed the Applicant’s discharge considering whether the Applicant’s diagnosis with PTSD in any way mitigates his misconduct. The VA records show the Applicant sought and received treatment for alcoholism and cocaine addiction, as well as for injuries suffered in a vehicle-rollover in Iraq. The Applicant was diagnosed with PTSD on 27 August 2008, but was found to have a normal brain scan with no evidence of brain injury . In order to establish whether PTSD is a mitigating factor to the Applicant’s misconduct, it would have been reasonable to expect the Applicant’s record of service to show a significant change in performance following the incident which caused the PTSD when compared to his performance prior to the incident . The record of evidence does not demonstrate this occurred . The Applicant’s in service misconduct began before his deployment to Iraq. Furthermore, the Applicant was put on probation for six months prior to enlisting for criminal mischief. The NDRB rejects the contention PTSD mitigates the Applicant’s misconduct. It is clear a pattern of misconduct was established before the Applicant joined the Marine Corps and continued in the Marine Corps prior to deploying to Iraq . The NDRB determined the


awarded discharge characterization was appropriate for the number and seriousness of the offenses and an upgrade founded on PTSD 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 | MD0800482

    Original file (MD0800482.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Sentence – RIR to E-5RESTR 60 days.6105 Counseling: 20030723: For Adultery Types of Documents SubmittedRelated 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 Representation: From Member of Congress: Other Documentation (Describe)...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801688

    Original file (MD0801688.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 Representation: From Congress member: Other Documentation: DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL...

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0900194

    Original file (MD0900194.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 NDRB 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 ADDENDUM: Information for...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0800819

    Original file (MD0800819.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Awarded - ,,Susp - 20050317: Art(s) 121 (Larceny).Awarded - ,,,Susp - 6105 Counseling: 20020826: For Unauthorized absence.20021211: For Unauthorized absence Types of Documents SubmittedRelated 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:...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801815

    Original file (ND0801815.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 would be inappropriate.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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0800443

    Original file (ND0800443.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Young and immature Decision Date: 20080404Location: Washington D.C Representation: By a vote of the Characterization shall .By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall PATTERN OF 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. After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Medical and Service Record...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801883

    Original file (ND0801883.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant has requested an upgrade to his discharge due to the fact his post service conduct shows he has changed and become a productive citizen in his community.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 Board determined the Applicant post service conduct did not warrant an upgrade to“Honorable” however; it was...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900416

    Original file (ND0900416.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The NDRB reviews discharges on a case-by-case basis and no evidence can be found in the Applicant’s service record to support his statement. The NDRB is not reviewing other service member’s misconduct or administrative or disciplinary actions against them. 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0800744

    Original file (MD0800744.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    However, after a complete review of the entire record, including the evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board determined that the discharge upgrade to under other than honorable conditions is appropriate in light of the nature and seriousness of the Applicant’s misconduct, and that the evidence of post - service conduct was not sufficient to convince the Board that a higher upgrade was appropriate at this time. ” Additional Reviews : Subsequent to a document review, former members are...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801141

    Original file (ND0801141.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 Entries, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found Pertinent Regulation/Law A. ” 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. ...