Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0900594
Original file (MD0900594.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-, USMC
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20090114
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)     19990224 - 19990907     Active:  

Period of Service Under Review:
 Date of Enlistment: 19991129     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Months
Date of Discharge: 20021205      H ighest Rank:
Length of Service : Y ea r ( s ) M on th ( s ) 6 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 54
MOS: 6672
Proficiency/Conduct M arks (# of occasions): ( ) / ( )    Fitness Reports:

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      Rifle

Periods of CONF : 20020517 – 20020714 (59 days)

NJP:
- 20011011 : Article 86 (UA )
Awarded: Suspended: Suspension vacated 20020211

- 20020212 : Article 92 ( Contributing to the delinquency of a minor )
 Awarded: Suspended:

- 20020308 : Article 86 ( UA ) , 3 specifications
Awarded: Suspended:

SCM: CC:

SPCM:
- 20020612 : Article 86 (UA) , 4 Specifications
                  - Specification 1: 1430/20020 425-1630/20020425 (2 hours)
                  - Specification 2: 1200/20020429-1630/20020429 (4 hours 30 minutes)
                  - Specification 3: 0730/20020508-1500/20020508 (7 hours 30 minutes)
 - Specification 4: 20020517 ( failed to go at the time prescribed to his place appointed
place of duty, to wit: physical fitness test )
         Article 112a (Drug use , m arijuana)
         Sentence: Forfeiture of $700.00 pay per month or 4 months.(total $2800.00) and confinement for 3 months.





Retention Warning Counseling:

- 20010318 :       For failure to improve weight standards. Five weeks after joining the weight program, PFC gained 12 pounds. He has failed the PFT on two occasions. He was scheduled to see a dietician to help with his weight gain problem and understand healthy eating habits . PFC failed to show up to the scheduled appointment.

- 20010918 :      For leaving on a 96 while on duty section and duty at SRD supply on 20010902. Prior to leaving on the 96 SNM was told by the GySgt to fill out 96 chit and duty section standby. After being told this, SNM did fill out the 96 chit, but not the duty section standby and never forwarded it up the Chain of Command.

- 20020313 :      For pattern of misconduct.

- 20020523 :      For my illegal drug involvement, THC usage identified through urinalysis confirmed by Navy Drug Lab Jacksonville FL message 272238Z Mar 02.

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

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

         “ 1999 11 29 ”
         “ 2 years 10 months 6 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 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 86 (UA), Article 92 (Contributing to the delinquency of a minor) and Article 112a (Drug use , m arijuana).



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

Applicant’s Issues

 1. D ischarge unjust.

Decision

 Date: 20 0 9 0409            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 believes his discharge was unjust. 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 5 retention warnings, 3 NJPs and a SPCM for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 86 (UA), Article 92 (Contributing to the delinquency of a minor) and Article 112a (Drug use , m arijuana). The NDRB advises the Applicant certain serious offenses warrant separation from the service in order to maintain proper order and discipline. Violation of Article 112a is one such offense requiring mandatory separation regardless of time in service , grade or record of service . Violations of this policy result in, at a minimum, mandatory processing for an administrative separation which usually results in an unfavorable characterization of discharge or, at a maximum, a punitive discharge and possible confinement if adjudicated and awarded as part of a sentence by a special or general court-martial. 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. The Applicant provided no documentation or explanation to support his belief the discharge was unjust. The NDRB determined the awarded discharge characterization was appropriate; an upgrade would be inappropriate.
After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Record, Discharge Process, 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 | 2006_Navy | ND0601136

    Original file (ND0601136.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Elements of Discharge: [REQUESTED BY MEMBER] Discharge Process: Voluntary: Requested by MemberDate Member Requested Separation:20020507Member Requested Separation Due To: Characterization Requested:member Recognized Least Favorable:Discharge directed by (date): COMMANDING OFFICER, TRANSIENT PERSONNEL UNIT PUGET SOUND (20020508)Narrative reason directed:Characterization directed: Date Applicant Discharged: 20020523 Additional Information Considered by Board Type of documentation submitted by...

  • USMC | DRB | 2014_Marine | MD1400369

    Original file (MD1400369.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.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1201563

    Original file (ND1201563.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    When notified of administrative separation processing using the procedure for Misconduct (Drug Abuse), Misconduct (Serious Offense), and Misconduct (Pattern of Misconduct), the Applicant rights to consult with a qualified counsel, submit a written statement, and request an administrative board. ” 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900648

    Original file (ND0900648.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

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

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801604

    Original file (ND0801604.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.The Applicant submitted a statement with his DD-293 Application claiming employment, education efforts, and participation in his church and in other community service. The Board determined the characterization...

  • 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:...

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0900392

    Original file (MD0900392.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board determined the characterization of service received, “Bad Conduct”, was an appropriate characterization considering the length of service and the UCMJ violations involved, and based on the limited post-service documentation provided,the Board determined this does not meet the high standards required to warrant clemency.After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Service Record Entries, Record of Trial, Discharge Process and...

  • USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1101237

    Original file (MD1101237.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The NDRB determined that clemency was not warranted.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entries, the record of trial by Special Court-Martial, and discharge process, the Board found that clemency was not warranted. ” 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801367

    Original file (ND0801367.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    For the record, the Applicant had requested on his DD Form 293 to change the narrative reason to “Hardship/Medical.” During the Applicant’s pre-board meeting with the NDRB representative, the Applicant decided not to request the change because he did not have any documentation to warrant this request. ” 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 | ND0801393

    Original file (ND0801393.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.The Applicant provided a personal statement and as evidence of post-service accomplishments. The Board determined the characterization of service received, “Under Other Than Honorable Conditions”, was an...