Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0900480
Original file (MD0900480.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-, USMC
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20081224
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)     20050328 - 20050605     Active:  

Period of Service Under Review:
 Date of Enlistment: 20050606     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Months
Date of Discharge: 20060616      H ighest Rank:
Length of Service : Y ea r ( s ) M on th ( s ) 01 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 64
MOS: 9900
Proficiency/Conduct M arks (# of occasions): 2.1 ( NFIR ) / 2.1 (NFIR)      Fitness Reports:

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      Rifle Pistol

Periods of UA / CONF :

NJP: CC: Retention Warning Counseling:

SCM:

- 20051209 :      Article 86 (UA) 20051014 – 20051030 (1 7 days)
         Article 91 (Disrespect to a noncommissioned officer)
         Article 92 (Failure to obey an order), 2 Specifications
          Sentence: (20051209 – 20060101 (2 4 days))

SPCM:

- 20060309 :      Article 86 (UA) 20060112 – 20060205 (24 days)
         Article 91 (Disrespect to a staff noncommissioned officer)
          Sentence: (2006 0207 – 20060315 (3 7 days))

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. The Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16F, effective 1 September 2001 until Present, Paragraph 6210, MISCONDUCT.

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 91 and Article 92 .


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

Applicant’s Issues

 1. Reenlistment opportunity.
2. Youth and immaturity.
3. Mitigating circumstances .
4. Punishment was inequitable because he was being made an example of.
5 . Post-service conduct.

Decision

 Date: 20 0 9 0319            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 , regarding this Issue.
: ( ) . 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 SCM and one SPCM for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 86 (UA); Article 91 (Disrespect toward a superior noncommissioned officer) and Article 92 (Disobeying a lawful order). Violation of Article 91 or Article 92 is considered a serious offense 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 Applicant was convicted by a court-martial for these violations but not sentenced to a punitive discharge. However, the Applicant was subsequently processed for administrative discharge. While the Applicant may feel his youth and immaturity were the underlying causes 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 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 due to circumstances which mitigated his misconduct. Specifically, he claims his aunt died on 12 September 2005 and he was denied leave to attend her funeral services : This led to an unauthorized absence which he claims in his DD-293 Application lasted for nine days. The record of evidence does not support this claim; it shows an unauthorized absence of 17 days between 14 October and 30 October 2005. The Applicant also contends he left to be with his grandmother during the hurricane season of 2005 in South Florida : This led to his unauthorized absence which he claims lasted for twelve days. Again, the record of evidence shows the Applicant was UA for twenty four day between 12 January 2006 and 5 February 2006 (which falls outside of the Atlantic hurricane season so the NDRB is confused on this explanation from the Applicant) . The NDRB rejects the Applicant’s contention. The Applicant provides no documented information he informed his chain of command of family problems and did not receive the assistance, leave, or help he asked for. Additionally, the Applicant makes no mention of, nor provides documented proof, if he attempted to use any one of the numerous family support programs sponsored by or for military service members. These programs and services, such as Family Advocacy, Navy – Marine Corps Relief Society, Red Cross, the Chaplain, or even Navy medical health personnel if needed, all provide services to members of the military, regardless of grade, in times of need. 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 command punished him harshly in order to make an example of him. The Applicant submits no evidence or further explanation

to support his claim. Furthermore, the record of evidence does not show the command sought the maximum punishment possible . The NDRB rejects the Applicant’s contention and determined an upgrade would be inappropriate.

: ( ) . The Applicant contends he is entitled to a discharge upgrade due to his post-service conduct. The Applicant contends he is entitled to a discharge upgrade because of 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 evidence of employment and several character reference letters. While the Board applauds the Applicant’s post service efforts, the Board determined the evidence of post-service conduct is not sufficient to warrant a discharge 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, “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

  • NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1101403

    Original file (ND1101403.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The NDRB determined that the characterization of the Applicant’s discharge was equitable and that relief based on this issue is not warranted. Relief denied.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 remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing...

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0901178

    Original file (MD0901178.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. Consider Applicant’s service in combat 4. The Board determined the characterization of service receivedwas appropriate considering the UCMJ violations involved and the lack of evidence submitted concerning this issue.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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0800480

    Original file (MD0800480.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Awarded - Susp - 6105 Counseling: 20050426: For DUI 20051209: For Wrongful use of cocaine 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 Records: Family/Personal Status: Community Service: References: Additional Statements From Applicant: From Representation: From Member of Congress: Other Documentation...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801249

    Original file (MD0801249.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2015_Navy | ND1500924

    Original file (ND1500924.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. 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 remain GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS) and the narrative reason for separation shall remain PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT. ” Additional Reviews : After a document...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801569

    Original file (MD0801569.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, medical and 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 hearing, provided the application is received at the NDRB within 15 years of the...

  • USMC | DRB | 2007_Marine | MD0700721

    Original file (MD0700721.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After a complete review of the entire record, including the evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board determined that the discharge was appropriate and that the evidence of post-service conduct was found not to mitigate the conduct which precipitated the discharge.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. Applicant...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900873

    Original file (ND0900873.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board determined there was sufficient evidence to support the discharge based on alcohol rehabilitation failure, and found the narrative reason to be proper.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 remain General (Under Honorable Conditions), and the narrative reason for separation shall remain Alcohol...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1101063

    Original file (ND1101063.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 .The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing for a period of fifteen years from the date of discharge. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a...

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0900232

    Original file (MD0900232.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board determined the awarded discharge characterization was appropriate and an upgrade would be inappropriate.For the Applicant’s edification, DoD regulations do not preclude a disciplinary separation when member’s engage in misconduct during medical evaluations and review boards. 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:...