Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0900399
Original file (MD0900399.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)     20040406 - 20040510     Active:  

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment: 20040511     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Months
Date of Discharge: 20070703      H ighest Rank:
Length of Service : Y ea r ( s ) M on th ( s ) 03 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 53
MOS: 0121
Proficiency/Conduct M arks (# of occasions): 4.3 ( 7 ) / 4.1 ( 7 )    Fitness R eports:

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      Rifle LOA CC

Periods of UA / CONF :

NJP:

- 20050811 :      92 ( Disobeying a lawful order)
         Awarded : Susp ended:

SCM:

- 20070323 :       Art icle 92 (Violation of a lawful order), 7 Specifications
         Article 134 (Making a false official pass), 2 Specifications
          Sentence : REST 60 Days

SPCM:

CC:

Retention Warning Counseling :

- 20050815 :       For violation of Article 92 by disobeying SQDNO regarding signing out of the liberty log.








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 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 s 92 and 134 .



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

Applicant’s Issues

 1. Sentence at Court-Martial did not include separation.

Decision


 Date: 20 0 9 0312            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 he was not sentenced to discharge at his Summary Court-Martial. 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 one retention warning, one NJP and one SCM for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 92 (Disobeying a lawful order , 8 specifications ); and Article 134 ( F alse or unauthorized pass offense , 2 specifications ). 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 punitive discharge but did hold a n SCM and subsequently processed him for an administrative discharge.

The NDRB rejects the Applicant’s contention as having no merit. For the edification of the Applicant, the maximum sentence awarded by an SCM can not include a discharge. A Marine convicted at an SCM, however, can be administratively separated based on an SCM conviction , as in this case. The record of evidence shows the Applicant was properly notified of the discharge proceedings against him but declined to submit a statement rebutting the command’s discharge request. Furthermore, the record shows the Applicant did consult with counsel before responding to the discharge notif ication. The NDRB determined a discharge 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 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. Docum entation 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; attendance or completion of higher education (official transcripts); and documentation of alcohol non-dependency and 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 failed to provide any post-service documentation and evidence on his behalf. Should the Applicant obt ain additional evidence or post- service documentation he may wish to apply for a personal appearance. There are veteran's organizations, such as the American Legion, willing to provide guidance to 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, 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 | MD0800784

    Original file (MD0800784.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT Applicant’s Issues 1. Furthermore, the NDRB notes the Applicant’s previous request for clemency filed on 22 November 2004 does not mention PTSD as the basis for that clemency request. After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Service and Medical Record Entries, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, t

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801544

    Original file (MD0801544.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Based on similar cases reviewed by the NDRB and the awarded discharge characterization those cases received for offenses of greater, and lesser, severity, the NDRB determined clemency was warranted in the Applicant’s case. However, the record of misconduct prior to his SPCM, documented by the NJP and SCM, limited the NDRB’s clemency to upgrading the characterization of service from “Bad Conduct” to “Under Other Than Honorable” conditions. The Board determined based on this overall...

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0900067

    Original file (MD0900067.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received at the NDRB within 15 years from the date of discharge. ” Additional Reviews : Subsequent to a document review, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application is received at the NDRB within 15 years from the date of discharge. If a former member has been discharged for more than 15 years, has already been granted a personal appearance hearing or has...

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0900846

    Original file (MD0900846.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.Should the Applicant obtain additional evidence or post-servicedocumentation he may wish to apply for a personal appearance. ” Additional...

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0900199

    Original file (MD0900199.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 lack of post service documentation provided an upgrade would be inappropriate.Should the Applicant feel his post service conduct becomes substantial enough to warrant a personal appearance, there are veteran’s organizations, such as the American Legion, willing to...

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0900360

    Original file (MD0900360.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall COMPLETION OR REQUIRED ACTIVE SERVICE.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 NDRB concurs with the Applicant’s contention his Narrative Reason for Separation should not indicate his discharge was ordered by a Court-Martial; therefore the Narrative Reason should be changed to “Completion of Required Active...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900626

    Original file (ND0900626.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The NDRB determined the awarded discharge characterization was appropriate and an upgrade founded upon the Applicant’s admission to consensual homosexual act 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801472

    Original file (ND0801472.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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, Articles 92 and112a DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.Access to medical benefits.2. The NDRB determined based on the serious nature of the Applicant’s offenses, and the sustained pattern of misconduct, the awarded...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900042

    Original file (ND0900042.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. ” Additional Reviews : Subsequent to a document review, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application is received at the NDRB within 15 years from the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801957

    Original file (ND0801957.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Violation of Article 112a is one such offense requiring mandatory separation regardless of time in service or grade. The NDRB determined the awarded discharge characterization 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...