Upgrade.Vet

USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0900355

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

ex-, USMC

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20081201

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)     20020109 - 20020910     Active:

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment: 20020910     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Months
Date of Discharge: 20060123      H ighest Rank:
Length of Service : Y ea r ( s ) M on th ( s ) 14 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 61
MOS: 1345 (Engineer Equipment Operator)
Proficiency/Conduct M arks (# of occasions): ( ) / ( )    Fitness R eports:

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      Rifle (1*) ICM CoC

Periods of UA / CONF :

NJP:
- 20030910 :       A rticle 86 (U A, failure to go ), 12 hours late
         Awarded : Susp ended:

- 20031118 :       Article 86 (U A, f ailure to go ) 33 min utes late
         Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation – check-in for restriction )
         Article 107 (False official statement)
         Article 113 (Misbehavior of sentinel – sleeping on post)
         Awarded : Susp ended:

- 20050215 :       A rticle 92 [2 specs] (Failure to obey order or regulation: Underage drinking and DUI)
         Awarded : Susp ended:

- 20050712 :       A rticle 91 (Insubordinate conduct towards an NCO)
         A rticle 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation from an NCO)
         Awarded : Susp ended: NONE

- 20051123 :       Article 86 (UA, failure to go) 30 min late
         Article 134 (Drunk on duty)
         Awarded : FOP RESTR/EPD Susp ended: NONE

SCM: SPCM: CC:

Retention Warning Counseling :

- 20030918 :       For Article 86 ( UA, repeated)

- 20050124 :       For Alcohol related incident (Underage drinking and DUI)

- 20050719 :       For Pattern of Misconduct – repeated violations of Art icle 86 (4 specifications); Article 91 ; Article 92 ( 4 specifications) and Article 107 .

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 s of the UCMJ : Article 86 (U A); Article 91 (Insub ordinate conduct towards an NCO; Article 92 (Failure to obey an order or regulation) ; Article 107 (False official statement) and Article 113 (Misbehavior of sentinel).

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

Applicant’s Issues
1. Reenlistment Opportunities
2. Youth and immaturity /record of service

Decision

Date: 20 0 9 0305 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 s , regarding .

: ( ) . The Applicant contends his problems in the Marine Corps can be attributed to mistake s he made due to immaturity. While he may feel his youth was 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 to youth or 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 3 retention warnings and five NJP’s for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 86 (U A ) ; Article 91 (Insubordinate conduct towards an NCO) ; Article 92 (Failure to obey an order or regulation); Article 107 (False official statement) and Article 113 (Misbehavior of sentinel). These violations are considered serious offenses, punishable by punitive discharge and confinement if adjudicated by a special or general court-martial. The command did not pursue a punitive discharge but opted instead for an administrative discharge. The Board determined the awarded discharge characterization was appropriate and a n upgrade would be inappropriate.

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; 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, he provide d a reference and service related document as evidence on his behalf. However, t o 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.

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 | MD0800800

Original file (MD0800800.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

6105 Counseling: 20050718: For Misconduct, Reckless Driving 20060304: Violations of Article 92, Failure to Obey a Lawful Order; Art 113, Misbehavior of a Sentinel 20060414: Violations of Articles 91, Insubordinate Conduct; Art 107, False Official Statement Types of Documents SubmittedRelated to Military Service: DD 214: Service and/or Medical Record: Other Records: Related to Post-Service Period: Employment: Finances: Education/Training: Health/Medical Records: Substance Abuse: Criminal...
NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600647

Original file (ND0600647.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Because the Applicant was discharged after his EAOS, and in accordance with MILPERSMAN instruction 1910 - 208, the board voted 4 to 1 to upgrade the Applicant’s discharge to General (Under Honorable Conditions) with a narrative reason change to Secretarial Authority. ” The names, and votes of the members of the Board are recorded on the original of this document and...
USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0900276

Original file (MD0900276.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to: Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive: USMCR (DEP)20040225 - 20040607Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 20040608Age at Enlistment: Period of Enlistment: Years MonthsDate of Discharge:20070731Highest Rank: Length of Service: Year(s)Month(s)24 Day(s)Education Level: AFQT:32MOS: 0341Proficiency/Conduct Marks (# of occasions):()/()Fitness Reports: Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):Rifle...
NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801749

Original file (ND0801749.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Board determined the characterization of service received, “Under Other Than Honorable Conditions”, was an appropriate characterization considering the time served 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 Entries, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found ADDENDUM:...
USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1000107

Original file (MD1000107.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Regulations limit the NDRB’s review to a determination of the propriety and equity of the discharge.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entries, and discharge process, the Board found Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall and the narrative reason for separation shall remain . ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance...
NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600480

Original file (ND0600480.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. The Applicant requests upgrade of his discharge to honorable. The Veterans Administration determines eligibility for post-service benefits, not the Naval Discharge Review Board.
NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801505

Original file (ND0801505.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant did not provide any evidence, nor was there any contained in her service record, that a medical condition was the cause of her misconduct.The Applicant has requested an upgrade of her discharge characterization to “Honorable”. The Board determined based on the limited documentation provided and the circumstances surrounding the situation that an upgrade would be inappropriate and the characterization of service received, “General (Under Honorable Conditions) ” , was an...
NAVY | DRB | 2014_Navy | ND1400527

Original file (ND1400527.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant contends his post-service conduct warrants an upgrade to Honorable.The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the re-characterization of a discharge. ” 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...
USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801959

Original file (MD0801959.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Board determined the Applicant’s contention is without merit and the awarded discharge characterization was appropriate. The awarded discharge characterization was appropriate and an upgrade founded upon mental and physical abuse 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...
NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1100348

Original file (ND1100348.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. ” 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.

Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0900355

Similar Decisions