Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0900405
Original file (MD0900405.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)    19991029 - 20000801     Active: 

Period of Service Under Review:
 Date of Enlistment: 20000802      Age at Enlistment:
Period of Enlistment : Years Months
Date of Discharge: 20021104       H ighest Rank:
Length of Service: Year(s) Month(s) 03 D ay(s)
 Education Level:         AFQT: 36
MOS: 7041
Proficiency/Conduct Marks (# of occasions): ( ) / ( )   Fitness Reports:

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):     Rifle

Periods of UA/CONF: UA, 20020110 – 20020213.
NJP:
- 20020314 :      Article 86 (UA, 20020110 – 20020213, 35 days)
         Awarded: CCU Suspended: for 3 months
- 20020627 :      Article 86 (UA), 2 specifications
         Article 92 (Disobeyed a direct order), 3 specifications
         Awarded: Suspended: for 6 months

- 20020716:      Article 107 (False official statement)
         Article 134 (Break restriction)
         Awarded: RESTR EPD FOP Suspended: NONE
SCM: SPCM: CC:

Retention Warning Counseling:
- 20020712:      For two counts of violation of Art 86 of the UCMJ, unauthorized absence. SNM was UA for a period 0530/020624 – 1259/020624 and again from 1445/020712 – 1502/020712. Violation of Art 107 (Uttering false official statements). Although violating liberty boundaries, SNM did drive in excess of 350 miles to his hometown and unable to return to his assignment to a restriction status, SNM did willfully violate the terms of his restriction after having been fully advised of those terms. When questioned, SNM did make false official statement as to his whereabouts during the time in question.

- 20020924:      For failure to obey rules and regulations and carry out orders given.
- 20021030 :      For failure to meet the Marine Corps’ body composition standard. Specific recommendations for corrective action are to lose weight to fall within standard and seek assistance.
Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

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

         “2 years/1 month/28 days”
         “ UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS ”
“20020110 – 20020213 (35 DAYS) ”

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 Representation:     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 violations of the UCMJ, Articles 86, 92, 107, and 134.


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

Applicant’s Issues

 1. Reenlistment opportunities.
2. Post-service conduct.

Decision


 Date: 2009 0312             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, , regarding .

: ( ) . The Applicant contends he is now married with four children and studying to be a nurse. 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 three retention warnings and three NJPs for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 86 (Absence without leave), 3 specifications; Article 92 (Failure to obey order), 3 specifications; Article 107 (False official statement); and Article 134 (Breaking restriction). These are considered serious violations 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.

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.

 Besides the Applicant’s DD Form 293, he failed to provide any supporting documentation and evidence on his behalf. While the NDRB appreciates the Applicant’s desire to make a better life for himself and his family, 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. 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 provide guidance to assist former service members in their efforts to obtain a discharge upgrade. The Board determined 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 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, provided 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 granted 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.
Employment/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 for 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 | 2005_Marine | MD0501574

    Original file (MD0501574.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In the acknowledgement letter, the Applicant was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION Not appealed.020208: Counseling: Advised of deficiencies in performance and conduct (SNM received battalion level NJP on 020207, this was SNM’s third NJP in 19 months.

  • USMC | DRB | 2007_Marine | MD0700239

    Original file (MD0700239.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board found that Issue(s)1-2: The Board determined that these Issue(s) are not issue(s) which can form the basis for relief for the Applicant or that the Board did not have the authority to grant the relief for which the Applicant petitioned. The Applicant’s service was marred by three discharge warnings and two nonjudicial punishments for violating the UCMJ Article(s) 86 Unauthorized absence, 92 Failure to obey order, regulation, 107 False official statements, and 134 Indecent...

  • USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0600950

    Original file (MD0600950.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions). PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 20050826 with a bad conduct discharge which was the sentence adjudged by a properly convened special court-martial. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004 Marine | MD04-00323

    Original file (MD04-00323.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Issues submitted by Applicant’s counsel/representative (DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS): “ Dear Chairperson:After a review of the Former Service Members (FSM) DD Form 293 Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States and all evidence assembled for review, we continue to note the contention of the appellant in his request for a discharge upgrade of his current Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD) to that of Honorable, or General Under Honorable Conditions....

  • USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0600542

    Original file (MD0600542.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions). Applicant chose not to make a statement.961120: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Specification: In that SNM (Applicant), did, on or about 961111, at 0400, violate a written order, to wit: MCO 1020.34F, in that he returned to base with an earring in his ear. The basis for this recommendation is [Applicant’s] discreditable involvement...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00240

    Original file (ND04-00240.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged in absentia 20021205 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct (A). The Board does not automatically upgrade a discharge after six months.

  • USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0600129

    Original file (MD0600129.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions). On 16 July 2002 the respondent received NJP for disobeying a lawful order given by his Warrant Officer and for being derelict in the performance of his duties in that he willfully failed to obey a lawful order by going to the gym and left his post as the DNCO while making false statements in the DNCO logbook. After a thorough review of the...

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0902481

    Original file (MD0902481.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    When notified of administrative separation processing using the procedure, the Applicant waived rights to consult with a qualified counsel, to submit a written statement, orto request a hearing before an administrative discharge board.The NDRB had a copy of the Applicant’s administrative separation package as well as the Applicant’s acknowledgement of rights in response to the pending administrative separation.The Applicant provided no documentation to rebut the government’s presumption of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2015_Navy | ND1500309

    Original file (ND1500309.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. There is no requirement or law that grants recharacterization solely on the issue of obtaining veterans benefits and this issue does not serve to...

  • USMC | DRB | 2013_Marine | MD1301796

    Original file (MD1301796.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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.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 .The Applicant...