Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0900330
Original file (MD0900330.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-, USMC
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20081125
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)     20051229 - 20060130     Active:  

Period of Service Under Review:
 Date of Enlistment: 20060131     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Months
Date of Discharge: 20071102      H ighest Rank:
Length of Service : Y ea r ( s ) M on th ( s ) 02 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 44
MOS: 0621
Proficiency/Conduct M arks (# of occasions): ( NFIR ) / ( NFIR )    Fitness Reports:

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      Rifle Pistol

Periods of UA / CONF :

NJP:
- 20070602 :      Article 92 (Disobeying a lawful order)
         Awarded: Suspended:

- 20070721 :      Article 92 (Disobeying a lawful order)
         Awarded: Suspended:

SCM: SPCM: CC:

Retention Warning Counseling:

- 20070614 :       For NJP for violation of Article 92.

- 20070726 :      For NJP for violation of Article 92.

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

The NDRB did note administrative error(s) on the original DD Form 214:

         “ MISCONDUCT ”

The NDRB will recommend to the Commandant of the Marine Corps that the DD 214 be corrected as appropriate.




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 P1900.16F), 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 92 .


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

Applicant’s Issues

 1. Youth and immaturity contributed to misconduct.
2. Only incidents were alcohol-related when within one year of turning 21.
3. Command should have offered alcohol rehabilitation prior to making discharge decision.
4. Completed alcohol rehabilitation treatment.
5. Punishment of discharge was too harsh.
6. Record of service.
 7. Post-service conduct.

Decision

 Date: 2009 0305             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 because his misconduct was caused by his youth and immaturity. 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 two NJPs for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 92 (Disobeying a lawful order). These 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. While the Applicant may feel his youth and immaturity were the underlying cause s 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 to his youth and immaturity . 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 his misconduct was only related to consumption of alcohol while he was under the legal drinking age. The NDRB rejects the Applicant’s contention. He repeatedly violated lawful orders and regulations which constitutes serious violations of the UCMJ. The fact the violations were “alcohol-related” has no bearing on the Applicant’s misconduct. The NDRB determined a discharge upgrade would be inappropriate.

: ( ) . The Applicant contends he is entitled to a discharge upgrade because he completed al cohol rehabilitation treatment and because he should have been offered treatment prior to deciding to separate him. The NDRB rejects the Applicant’s contentions. The Applicant was not discharged due to alcohol dependence or due to his failure to complete alcohol rehabilitation; rather he was discharged for misconduct. The NDRB determined a discharge upgrade would be inappropriate.

: ( ) . The Applicant contends he is entitled to a discharge upgrade because he feels the discharge was too harsh considering the other punishment he received at NJP. The Applicant should understand he did not receive his discharge as part of the punishment awarded at NJP. The discharge was completed through an administrative separation process which is a non-punitive process and was initiated after his second NJP. The NDRB determined a discharge upgrade would be inappropriate.
: ( ) . The Applicant contends he is entitled to a discharge upgrade due to his record of service. Despite a Marine’s prior record of service certain serious offenses, even though isolated, warrant


separation from the naval service in order to maintain proper order and discipline. Failing to obey orders and regulations is considered a serious breach of military discipline as it undermines command authority and unit cohesion. Service members who repeatedly fail to obey legal orders and regulations issued by their leadership warrant separation from the service. The NDRB determined the awarded discharge characterization was appropriate and an upgrade founded upon the Applicant’s record of service would be inappropriate.
: ( ) . The Applicant contends he is entitled to a discharge upgrade due to 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 provided only a statement in his DD-293 Application claiming he has been a good citizen since being discharged. While the Board applauds the Applicant’s post service efforts to be a good citizen , the Board determined the evidence of post-service conduct did not support an upgrade. 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, “General (Under Honorable Conditions)”, was an appropriate characterization considering the length of service and the UCMJ violations involved, and based on the lack of 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, 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 | MD0801859

    Original file (MD0801859.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, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found ADDENDUM:...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801597

    Original file (MD0801597.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 conduct mitigates the reason for the characterization of discharge.Although the Applicant states he has matured and changed, he did not provide a personal statement, supporting documentation of post service accomplishments or character witness statements to support his request...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1000163

    Original file (ND1000163.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: DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700756

    Original file (ND0700756.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant’s record of service was marred by one retention warning, two NJPs and two Summary Court-Martials (SCM) for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), Article 86 (Unauthorized absence), Article 87 (Missing movement),Article 90 (Willfully disobeying a commissioned officer), Article 92 (Dereliction of duty), Article 107 (False official statement), Article 134 (Drunkenness, Incapacitated for duty), and Article 134 (Breaking restriction). The Applicant contends that...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0800662

    Original file (ND0800662.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    These are considered serious offenses, punishable by punitive discharge and confinement if adjudicated by a special or general court-martial. 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. ” Additional Reviews : Subsequent to a document...

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0900355

    Original file (MD0900355.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board determined the awarded discharge characterization was appropriate and an upgrade wouldbe inappropriate.The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900108

    Original file (ND0900108.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT Applicant’s Issues 1. On page 4, Item 8, in the instructions for completion of DD Form 293, the Applicant is notified to submit evidence "which substantiate or relate directly to your issues in Item 6" (Issues: Why an upgrade or change is requested and justification for the request). ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal...

  • USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0601078

    Original file (MD0601078.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, and advised being processed for administrative discharge action.20000215: NJP for violation(s) of UCMJ: Article 92 (2 specifications): Specification 1:On or about 0500, 20000122, violated a lawful order by wrongfully consuming alcoholic beverages while under the legal drinking age.Specification 2: On or about 0600, 20000123, violated a lawful order by wrongfully consuming alcoholic beverages while under the legal...

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0900048

    Original file (MD0900048.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, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found ADDENDUM:...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801872

    Original file (ND0801872.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The NDRB determined the awarded discharge was appropriate and 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 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...