Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0900133
Original file (MD0900133.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-, USMC
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20081021
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)     20000728 - 20000806     Active:  

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment: 20000807     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Months
Date of Discharge: 20020211      H ighest Rank:
Length of Service : Y ea r M on ths 05 D a ys
Education Level:        AFQT: 61
MOS: 3521
Proficiency/Conduct M arks (# of occasions): ( ) / ( )    Fitness R eports:

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      Rifle Pistol

Periods of UA / CONF :

NJP:
- 20010522 :       Article 121 ( Larceny & wrongful appropriation : switched cellular phone parts that did not belong to him)
         Article 107 (False official statement : denied switching cellular phone parts )
          Awarded: Suspended:

- 20011212 :      Article 112a (Drug use - marijuana )
          Awarded : Susp ended:

SCM: SPCM: CC:

Retention Warning Counseling :

- 20011206 : For wrongful use of a controlled substance; specifically 21 ng/ml of THC.
        
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. Employment/Educational opportunities .
2. Request upgrade to achieve a better life for his family .

Decision

Date: 20 0 9 0205            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 , regarding .

: ( ) . The Applicant contends he needs an upgrade to his discharge in order to be financially stable and provide a better life for his family. 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 a retention warning and two NJP’s for violations of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 107 (False official statement) ; Article 112a (Drug abuse, wrongful use of a controlled substance) and Article 121 (Larceny & wrongful appropriation ). The NDRB advises the Applicant certain serious offenses warrant separation from the service in order to maintain proper order and discipline. Violation of Article 112a is one such offense requiring mandatory separation regardless of time in service or grade. Violations of this policy result in, at a minimum, mandatory processing for an administrative separation which usually results in an unfavorable characterization of discharge or, at a maximum, a punitive discharge and possible confinement if adjudicated and awarded as part of a sentence by a spe cial or general court-martial. The command did not pursue a punitive discharge but opted instead for an administrative discharge.

The Applicant has requested an upgrade in his discharge to “General (under Honorable Conditions). The Applicant failed to provide any additional documentation or evidence in support of his request for an upgrade to his discharge characterization. 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 “Under Other Than Honorable” conditions discharge is appropriate when the basis for separation is commission or omission of an act that constitutes a significant departure from the conduct expected from a service member. While the NDRB understands the Applicant’s desire to achieve a better life for his family , this by itself is not sufficient to support an upgrade in his discharge characterization. T he Board determined the Applicant’s misconduct was a significant departure from that expected of a U.S. Marine and without a further documentation or evidence for the Board to review the awarded discharge was appropriate; an upgrade would be inappropriate.

For the edification of the Applicant, 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 under 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; marriage and children’s birth certificate (if applicable); character witness statements; 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 companies, or other financial institutions; attending or completion of higher education (official transcripts) and documentation of a drug free lifestyle. 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 s statement on the DD Form 293, at this time the Applicant failed to provide any additional documentation or evidence on his behalf. To warrant an upgrade the Applicant’s post service 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. Should the Applicant obtain additional evidence or post service documentation he may wish to apply for a personal appearance. There are veteran’s organizations, such as the American Legion, willing to provide guidance to assist former service members in their efforts to obtain a discharge upgrade.

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. The Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16F, effective 1 September 2001 until Present, Paragraph 6210, MISCONDUCT .

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 107 (False official statement); Article 112a (Drug abuse, wrongful use of a controlled substance) and Article 121 (Larceny & wrongful appropriation ).

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 | 2009_Marine | MD0902383

    Original file (MD0902383.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Additionally, the NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities. ” 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.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900558

    Original file (ND0900558.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT Applicant’s Issues 1. 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 Applicants...

  • USMC | DRB | 2013_Marine | MD1300325

    Original file (MD1300325.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The evidence of record also reflects the Applicant was found guilty at nonjudicial punishment for violations of UCMJ Articles 121 (Larceny, 2 specifications), 107 (False official statement), and 112a (Wrongful use, possession, etc. ” 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. There is no requirement or...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1200801

    Original file (ND1200801.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Commander, Navy Personnel Command reviewed the Applicant’s record of service and ordered the Applicant to be discharged Under Other Than Honorable Conditions for Misconduct (Serious Offense). The NDRB is not authorized to make a discharge characterization of service more unfavorable and so determined the Under Other Than Honorable Conditions was equitable and does not warrant an upgrade based upon his violation of UCMJ Articles 107, 112a, and 121. ” Additional Reviews : After a document...

  • USMC | DRB | 2012_Marine | MD1200948

    Original file (MD1200948.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Additionally, while inservice, he received punishment at two separate NJPs for making false official statements, larceny, misbehavior of a sentinel, and wrongful use of controlled substances. Additionally, support is available by phone at: 1-877-222-VETS (8387).Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entries, and the punitive discharge process, the Board found Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall...

  • USMC | DRB | 2015_Marine | MD1500626

    Original file (MD1500626.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant could have provided documentation as detailed in the Post-Service Conduct paragraph in the Addendum, however, 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 establishes that the in-service misconduct was an aberration. Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700056

    Original file (ND0700056.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Award: Forfeiture of $150.00 for 1 month, restriction to SSC BEQ and extra duty for 14 days.19901121: Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (poor military performance, by wrongfully using reproachful words, wrongfully going on liberty without your armed forces liberty pass, by assaulting another service member, by wrongfully communicating a threat to sexually assault another service member), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further...

  • USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1100281

    Original file (MD1100281.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. Relief denied.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entries and the administrative separation process, the Board found the discharge was proper and equitable at the time of discharge.However, based on Applicant and witness testimony, and the evidence presented at the hearing, the awarded...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2015_Navy | ND1501051

    Original file (ND1501051.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Issue 2: (Decisional) (Equity) RELIEF 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. Additionally, the NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801590

    Original file (ND0801590.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to:Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive: USNR (DEP)20000925 - 20010807Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 20010808Period of Enlistment: YearsExtensionDate of Discharge:20040521Length of Service:Years Months14 DaysEducation Level:Age at Enlistment:AFQT:NFIRHighest Rank/Rate:OSSNEvaluationMarks:Performance:NFIR Behavior:NFIROTA: NFIRAwards and Decorations (per DD 214):Rifle , Pistol...