Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0900268
Original file (MD0900268.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-, USMC
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20081114
Characterization of Service Received:
Narrative Reason for Discharge: UNSAT PARTICIPATION IN READY RESERVE
Authority for Discharge: MARCORSEPMAN

Applicant’s Request: Characterization change to:
                  Narrative Reason change to:

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive: NONE           Active:  

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment: 20040816     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Months
Date of Discharge: 20060331      H ighest Rank:
Length of Service :
         Active:   Y ea r ( s ) M on th ( s ) 22 D a y ( s )
         Inactive:         Y ea r ( s ) M on th ( s ) 08 D a y ( s )
 Education Level:        AFQT: 74
MOS: 3531/3533
Proficiency/Conduct M arks (# of occasions): 1.1 ( ) / ( )         Fitness R eports:

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      Rifle

Periods of UA / CONF :

NJP: SCM: SPCM: CC:

Retention Warning Counseling :

- 20050522 : For unsatisfactory participant in the Selected Marine Corps Reserve, specifi cally your failure to report to
 drill as required and you have failed to make any attempt to make up unexcused absences. [Not available
for signature.]

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. Reenlistment opportunity.
2. Mitigating circumstances.
3. Post-service conduct.

Decision


 Date: 20 0 9 0226            Location: Washington D.C .         R epresentation :

By a vote of the Characterization shall .
By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall UNSAT PARTICIPATION IN READY RESERVE .
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 this Issue.
: ( ) . The Applicant contends he is entitled to a discharge upgrade due to circumstances which mitigated his misconduct. Specifically, the Applicant cites unspecified personal problems which made him feel he had no need to attend drill. 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 at least 15 missed inactive duty training periods. While the Applicant may feel his personal problems w ere the underlying cause of his misconduct, the record of evidence does not demonstrate the Applicant was not responsible for his misconduct or should not be held accountable for his actions due his personal problems. The NDRB determined the awarded discharge was appropriate and an upgrade would be inappropriate.

: ( ) . The Applicant contends he is entitled to a discharge upgrade because of his post-service conduct. 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.

The Applicant pro vided evidence of employment for a period of five months and two character reference letters. While the Boar d applauds the Applicant’s post- service efforts, the Board determined the evidence of post-service conduct did not mitigate the misconduct which precipitated the discharge. 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. 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.
The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing . Should the Applicant feel at some later time his post - service conduct is worthy of personally presenting to the NDRB there are organizations, such as the American Legion, willing to provide guidance and assistance in preparing such a presentation.

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 6213 of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16E), effective 1 September 2001
until Present.

B. Marine Corps Reserve Administrative Management Manual, MCO P1001R.1, Chapter 3, Reserve Participation and Administrative Procedures, paragraph 3300.

C. Table 61 of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16F), effective 1 September 2001, Guide for Characterization of Service.

 D . 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 | 2009_Marine | MD0902242

    Original file (MD0902242.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall .Discussion The NDRB, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge, is authorized to change the character of service and the reason for discharge if such change is warranted. The Board did complete a thorough review of the circumstances that led to discharge and the discharge process to ensure discharge met the pertinent standards of equity and propriety.The Applicant’s record of service included twelve 6105...

  • USMC | DRB | 2012_Marine | MD1201890

    Original file (MD1201890.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: Pertinent Regulation/Law A. Paragraph 6213 of the Marine...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0901591

    Original file (ND0901591.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Based on the evidence of record, the NDRB determined the Applicant met the requirements for separation by reason of unsatisfactory participation in the Ready Reserve, and the awarded characterization of service was warranted.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entriesand discharge process, the Board found Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall and the narrative reason for separation shall remain...

  • USMC | DRB | 2012_Marine | MD1200300

    Original file (MD1200300.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Based on the Applicant’s missed drills in the Ready Reserve, command administratively processed for separation. 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. ” 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0900335

    Original file (MD0900335.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    :(Decisional) () .The Applicant contends his discharge was improper due to his medical condition, which prevented him from attending his drills.He also requested to change his narrative reason for separation to “Secretarial Authority.” 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 did receive and sign his...

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0900362

    Original file (MD0900362.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.The Applicant provided only a statement in his DD Form 293 application claiming employment and non-involvement with civil authorities. ”...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0901266

    Original file (ND0901266.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to: Narrative Reason change to: REQUESTED, FINANCIAL HARDSHIP Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive:NONE Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 20030731Age at Enlistment:Period of Enlistment: YearsExtensionDate of Discharge:20040614Highest Rank/Rate:OSSNLength of Service: Year(s)Month(s)14 Day(s)Education Level:AFQT: 36EvaluationMarks:Performance:NFIRBehavior:NFIROTA: NFIRAwards and Decorations (per DD 214):NONEPeriods of...

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0900192

    Original file (MD0900192.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board does not consider the Applicant’s request being denied as mistreatment; the Applicant was not in a satisfactory drill status in the spring of 2004 as evidenced by his missed IDTS in February 2004 and therefore was not eligible to transfer until after his missed IDT’s were made up. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1300062

    Original file (ND1300062.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant wants to reenlist.2. Representation: By a vote of the Characterization shall .By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall .Discussion The NDRB, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge, is authorized to change the character of service and the reason for discharge if such change is warranted.In reviewing discharges, the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0901121

    Original file (ND0901121.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.Wants to reenlist and was told he would beeligible for reenlistment into the Navy six months after discharge.2. However, even if the Applicant could have produced additional evidence to support a review based on his post-service conduct, the Applicant must have a full understanding that post-service conduct alone does not guarantee an upgrade.Summary: After a thorough review of...