Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0900232
Original file (MD0900232.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-, USMC
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20081107
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)     941028 - 950129         Active:  

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment: 19 950130     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Months
Date of Discharge: 19 97 0205     H ighest Rank:
Length of Service : Y ea r s M on th 07 D a ys
Education Level:        AFQT: 35
MOS: 3531
Proficiency/Conduct M arks (# of occasions): ( ) / ( )    Fitness R eports:

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      Rifle

Periods of UA / CONF :

NJP:
- 19951002 :       Article 86 (UA)
         Awarded : Susp ended:

- 19960201 :       Article 86 ( UA )
         Awarded : Susp ended: for 3 months

- 19960313 :       Article 86 (UA), 5 specifications
         1 st specification Article 91 (Willfully disobey an NCO)
         2 nd specification Article 91 (Disrespect towards an NCO)
         Awarded : Susp ended:

SCM: SPCM: CC:

Retention Warning Counseling :

- 19950201 :       For being UA from his appointed place of duty.
- 19950207:      For failure to maintain Marine Corps height and weight standards.
- 199510 02:      For violation of Article 86, UCMJ: In that PFC H. Santana, U.S. Marine Corps, did, on or about 0530, 950918, without authority, absent himself from his appointed place of duty which he was required to be.
- 19960201:      For violation of Article 86, UCMJ: In that PFC H. Santana, U.S. Marine Corps, did, on or about 0630, 960127, without authority, absent himself from his appointed place of duty which he was required to be.


Retention Warning Counseling (cont) :

- 19960313:      violation of Article 86, UCMJ: In that PFC H. Santana, U.S. Marine Corps, did, on or about 0630, 960221; 1630, 960222; 1630, 960223; 1630, 960224; 1630, 190302 , without authority, absent himself from his appointed place of duty which he was required to be. Violated Article 91, willfully disobey an NCO, and disrespect towards an NCO by walking away while being spoken to by his NCO.

- 19960531:      For failure to maintain Marine Corps height and weight standards.
- 19960830:      For failure to maintain Marine Corps height and weight standards.

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 6210, MISCONDUCT , of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16E), effective 31 January 1997 until 31 August 2001.

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) ; Article 91 (Willfully disobey an NCO) and Article 91 (Disrespect towards an NCO) .



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

Applicant’s Issues

 1. Unjustly discharge while awaiting a medical board .
2. Post-service conduct.

Decision

 Date : 20 0 9 0223            Location: Washington D.C .         R epresentation :

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

 : ( ) . The Applicant contends h is discharge should be upgraded based on that he was unjustly discharge, while awaiting a medical board. 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 seven retention warnings, and three N J P’s for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 86 (UA), seven specifications; Article 91 (Willfully disobey a non-commissioned officer); and Article 91 (Disrespect towards a non-commissioned officer) . T hese are considered serious offenses which could have resulted in 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 refer the Applicant for a court martial but opted instead for an administrative discharge . The documentation and statements provided by the Applicant did not refute the presumption of regularity in this case. The Board determined the awarded discharge characterization was appropriate and an upgrade would be inappropriate.

 For the Applicant’s edification, DoD regulations do not preclude a disciplinary separation when member’s engage in misconduct during medical evaluations and review boards. SECNAVINST 1850.4 E stipulates suspension of disability or medical separation proceedings i n cases where the service member is undergoing a disciplinary or administrative discharge preceding which results in a punitive discharge or administrative discharge for misconduct . The Applicant is directed to the Addendum, specifically the paragraph concerning Medical Conditions and Misconduct for further information.

: ( ) . The 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; 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 DD Form 293, no documentation was provided for review. 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 feel h is post service conduct becomes substantial enough to warrant 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 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 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 | 2010_Marine | MD1002317

    Original file (MD1002317.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Based on the Article 112a violation, processing for administrative separation is mandatory. 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.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, service record entries, and discharge process, the Board found Therefore, the awarded...

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0900565

    Original file (MD0900565.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 | 2006_Marine | MD0601155

    Original file (MD0601155.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Suspended for 6months.Not appealed.19991101: Administrative separation under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct was approved by CG, 2dFSSG. 20000209: NJP for violation(s) of UCMJ: Article 86: UA (AWOL) from 1301, 20000121 to 0945, 20000202 (11 days). 20000214: Vacation of suspended administrative separation under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0902484

    Original file (MD0902484.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The General Court Martial Convening Authority affirmed all three reasons for separation, directed a characterization of service of Under Other than Honorable Conditions due to significant negative aspects of conduct, and further directed that the primary basis for separation reporting was Misconduct, Due to a Pattern of Misconduct. The evidence of record does not demonstrate the Applicant was not responsible for his conduct, or that he should not be held accountable for his actions.By a...

  • USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0600129

    Original file (MD0600129.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions). On 16 July 2002 the respondent received NJP for disobeying a lawful order given by his Warrant Officer and for being derelict in the performance of his duties in that he willfully failed to obey a lawful order by going to the gym and left his post as the DNCO while making false statements in the DNCO logbook. After a thorough review of the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004 Marine | MD04-01234

    Original file (MD04-01234.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Mr. C_’s (Applicant's) discharge from the Marine Corps in 1993 was less than fully Honorable, due entirely to the abuse of authority by those entrusted with positions over him at the time. Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events : 890503: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 91: Disrespect … by lying.NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Disobedience of a lawful order …Awd red to E-1, forf of $75.00 per month for 1 month, 14 days restriction and extra duties. 890720: NJP for...

  • USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1001648

    Original file (MD1001648.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant contends his discharge is inequitable, because he lost three ranks and received an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge for being UA; in addition, he provided a letter from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) saying he had Honorable service.The VA’s decisional letter is not binding on the NDRB. Relief 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2001_Marine | MD01-00670

    Original file (MD01-00670.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION Sentence: Confinement for 60 days, Forfeiture of $639.00 pay per month for 2 months, and a bad conduct discharge. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 000823 with a bad conduct discharge which was the sentence adjudged by a properly constituted special court martial that was determined to be legal and proper, affirmed in the legal chain of review and executed (A and B).

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801946

    Original file (MD0801946.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    However, the Board did determine, by a majority vote of 3-2, to change the Applicant’s character of service to General (Under Honorable Conditions).Relief granted.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, medical and record entries, and discharge process, the Board found the discharge was proper and equitable at the at the time of discharge. However, based on his post-service efforts, the Board deemed it fit to award an...

  • USMC | DRB | 2007_Marine | MD0700204

    Original file (MD0700204.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Discharge Process Date Notified: 20010416Basis for Discharge: DUE TO: Least Favorable Characterization: Commanding Officer’s Intended Recommendation: Date Applicant Responded to Notification:20010420Rights Elected at Notification: Consult with Counsel Obtain Copies of Documents Submit Statement(s) (date) Administrative Board Commanding Officer Recommendation (date): (UNDATED) SJA review (date): (20010507/20010529) Separation Authority (date): COMMANDING GENERAL, MARINE CORPS BASE, QUANTICO,...