Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0900269
Original file (MD0900269.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-, USMC
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20081114
Characterization of Service Received:
Narrative Reason for Discharge:
Authority for Discharge: MARCORSEPMAN (CONDITION NOT A DISABILITY)

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

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive: USMCR (DEP)     20050707 - 20060618     Active:  

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment: 20060619     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Months
Date of Discharge: 20080212      H ighest Rank:
Length of Service : Y ea r ( s ) M on th ( s ) 24 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 50
MOS: 0121
Proficiency/Conduct M arks (# of occasions): ( ) / ( )    Fitness R eports:

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      Rifle

Periods of UA / CONF :

NJP: SCM: SPCM: CC:

Retention Warning Counseling :

- 20071212 : For chronic anxiety disorder.

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. Record of service.

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 .

Discussion

 : ( ) . The Applicant contends she is entitled to a discharge upgrade due to her record of service which does not include any record of misconduct. 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 NDRB concurs with the Applicant’s contention. The NDRB ‘s review found the Applicant’s record of service did not contain any evidence of misconduct or substandard performance and determined the Applicant’s service meets the criteria to warrant an upgrade of her characterization of service to “Honorable.”

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. Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16F), effective 1 September 2001 and Present, paragraph 6203, CONVENIENCE OF THE GOVERNMENT .

 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 | 2008_Marine | MD0801412

    Original file (MD0801412.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant contends his discharge should be upgraded because he had no record of misconduct in more than three years of war-time service and his discharge was for a medical issue. The Board determined an upgrade to “Honorable” is appropriate.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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801961

    Original file (MD0801961.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board determined the discharge characterization should be upgraded to an “Honorable” with the narrative reason for the discharge, “Condition Not a Disability” to remain as issued. 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801776

    Original file (MD0801776.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The NDRB determined the Applicant’s discharge was proper but not equitable, and found an upgrade to “Honorable” is warranted.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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1100500

    Original file (MD1100500.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT Applicant’s Issues 1. Therefore, the NDRB determined the characterization of service will change to Honorable with no change to the narrative reason 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 | 2008_Marine | MD0801875

    Original file (MD0801875.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    However, by unanimous vote, the narrative reason for the discharge, “Condition not a disability” shall remain as issued. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900692

    Original file (ND0900692.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Authority for Discharge: MILPERSMAN3620270 PHYSICAL DISABILITY 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801525

    Original file (MD0801525.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In summary, his service met the standards of accepted conduct and performance, and should have therefore been characterized as “Honorable.” The Board voted unanimously to change the characterization to “Honorable” but to leave the narrative reason unchanged.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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0900359

    Original file (MD0900359.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Record of service. The NDRB ‘s review found the Applicant’s record of service did not contain any evidence of misconduct or substandard performance and determined the Applicant’s service meets the criteria to warrant an upgrade of his characterization of service to “Honorable.” :The NDRB did not consider this issue since an upgrade is warranted as described under Issue 1. ” Additional Reviews : Subsequent to a document review, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing,...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801658

    Original file (MD0801658.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to: Narrative Reason change to:CONVENIENCE OF THE GOVERNMENT Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive: USMCR (DEP)20040311 - 20041017Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 20041018Age at Enlistment: Period of Enlistment: Years MonthsDate of Discharge:20060828Highest Rank: Length of Service: Year(s)Month(s)11 Day(s)Education Level: AFQT:51MOS: 0331Proficiency/Conduct Marks (# of occasions):()/()Fitness Reports: Awards and...

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0900193

    Original file (MD0900193.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The NDRB ‘s review found the Applicant’s record of service did not contain any evidence of misconduct or substandard performance and determined the Applicant’s service meets the criteria to warrant an upgrade of his characterization of service to “Honorable.” 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...