Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0900610
Original file (MD0900610.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-, USMC
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20090121
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)     20050729 - 20051204     Active:  

Period of Service Under Review:
 Date of Enlistment: 20051205     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Months
Date of Discharge: 20070719      H ighest Rank:
Length of Service : Y ea r ( s ) M on th ( s ) 15 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 22
MOS: 0311
Proficiency/Conduct M arks (# of occasions): ( ) / ( )    Fitness Reports:

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      Rifle

Periods of UA / CONF : UA: 20070124-20070 30 2 (3 8 days) / CONF: 20070302-20070307 (6 days)

NJP:
- 20060530 :      Article 86 (UA 2330, 20060526-0230, 20060527 (3 hours) )
         Awarded: Suspended:

- 20061130 :      Article 86 (UA 0700, 20061002-1300, 20061104 (32 days, 5 hours)
         Article 87 (Miss movement)
         Awarded: Suspended:

SCM:

- 20070517 :      Article 86 (20061215-20070129 (44 da ys, 18 hours, 20 minutes)
         Sentence: RESTR
         CA Action 20070517: Sentence is approved and will be executed

SPCM: CC:

Retention Warning Counseling:

- 20060530 :      For unauthorized absence from 2330, 20060526 to 0230, 20060527 .

- 20070621 :       For your charges for selling and possession of marijuana and resisting a public officer.

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

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

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214 (cont)

          “ 2005 12 05 ”
         “ UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS ”
         “ MISCONDUCT ”

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 P1900.16E), 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 86 and Article 87 .


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

Applicant’s Issues

 1. Reenlistment opportunity.
2. Harassment while in military.
3. Post-service conduct.

Decision

 Date: 20 0 9 0423            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.
: ( ) . The Applicant contends he is entitled to a discharge upgrade because he was harassed and verbally abused by senior Marines. 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 two retention warnings, two NJPs and one SCM for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 86 (UA) and Article 87 (Missing movement). 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 based on the misconduct conducted . The Applicant was also charged in civilian courts with possession of marijuana, selling marijuana, and resisting a police officer. Furthermore, t he Applicant had an additional period of UA for 38 days which was not adjudicated. The NDRB determined the Applicant’s claims of verbal abuse and harassment are not substantiated by the record of evidence and do not justify his actions of misconduct: T he Applicant should understand misconduct by other service members is not a viable excuse for the Applicant’s misconduct. The NDRB determined the awarded discharge characterization was appropriate and an upgrade would be inappropriate.

: ( ) . 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 several character references which appear to show the Applicant was enrolled in a substance abuse treatment program. 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

  • USMC | DRB | 2013_Marine | MD1301104

    Original file (MD1301104.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD13-01104 en DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT APPLICANT?’S ISSUES 1. The NDRB determined the Applicant’s post-service efforts do not warrant clemency. You may view DoD Instruction 1332.28 and other Decisional Documents by going online at “http://Boards.Jaw.af-mil.” Additional Reviews: After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application is received...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801899

    Original file (MD0801899.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board determined the awarded discharge characterization was appropriate and an upgrade would be inappropriate.For the edification of the Applicant, the NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. 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 :...

  • USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1002309

    Original file (MD1002309.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Types of Documents Submitted/reviewedRelated to Military Service: DD 214:Service/Medical Record:Other Records: Related to Post-Service Period: Employment: Finances: Education/Training: Health/Medical Records: Rehabilitation/Treatment: Criminal Records: Personal Documentation: Community Service: References: Department of VA letter: Other Documentation: Additional Statements:From Applicant: From/To Representation:From/ToCongress member: DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801858

    Original file (MD0801858.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The NDRB determined clemency would be inappropriate.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, the Board found clemency was not warranted and the sentence awarded the Applicant at his court-martial was appropriate for the offenseshe committed. ” Additional Reviews : Subsequent to a document review, former members are eligible for a personal...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600808

    Original file (ND0600808.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. No indication of appeal in the record.010818: Applicant to confinement.010820: Applicant released from confinement (2 days).020215: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (4 specs): Specification 1: UA from unit from 020206 until 020207. ” 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2012_Marine | MD1200470

    Original file (MD1200470.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Types of Documents Submitted/reviewedRelated to Military Service: DD 214:Service/Medical Record:Other Records: Related to Post-Service Period: Employment: Finances: Education/Training: Health/Medical Records: Rehabilitation/Treatment: Criminal Records: Personal Documentation: Community Service: References: Department of VA letter: Other Documentation: Additional Statements:From Applicant: From/To Representation:From/ToCongress member: DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1201082

    Original file (ND1201082.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 for a period of fifteen years from the date of discharge. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are...

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0901320

    Original file (MD0901320.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, service record entries, and discharge process, the Board found Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall remain Under Other Than Honorable Conditions and the narrative reason for separation shall remain Misconduct. You may view DoD Instruction 1332.28 and other Decisional Documents by going online at “http://Boards.law.af.mil.” Additional Reviews: After a document review...

  • USMC | DRB | 2007_Marine | MD0701101

    Original file (MD0701101.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Certain serious offenses, even though isolated, warrant separation from the Naval service in order to maintain proper order and discipline.The Applicant’s service was marred by tworetention warnings and two nonjudicial punishments (NJP) for a violations of Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), Article 86 {Unauthorized absence (more than 30 days)] and Article 134 (Breaking restriction). After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service,...

  • USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-00568

    Original file (MD03-00568.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the Applicant’s service was discovered by the NDRB. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: None Inactive:...