Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0900690
Original file (MD0900690.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-, USMC
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20090130
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)       20010205 - 20010318     Active:   19990901-20000720 GEN

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment: 20010319     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Months
Date of Discharge: 20060318      H ighest Rank:
Length of Service : Y ea r ( s ) M on th ( s ) 00 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 64
MOS: 1345
Proficiency/Conduct M arks (# of occasions): ( ) / ( )    Fitness R eports:

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      Rifle (2d Awd) (w/V) (3d Awd)

Periods of UA / CONF :

NJP:
- 20020418 :      Article 134 (Wrongfully possess, with intent to deceive, a military ID card)
          Awarded : Susp ended:

- 20020509 :      Article 134 ( Wrongfully and falsely alter a light duty chit)
         Awarded : Susp ended:


SCM: SPCM: CC:

Retention Warning Counseling :

- 20020403:      For failure to be responsive to performance counseling provided by your SNCOIC to assist your deficiencies. Specifically, violation of Article 92 (Not wearing proper uniform to a scheduled inspection), and failure to maintain required uniforms.

- 20020416:      For your academic drop from the AVA-I course of instruction drop code 080-81.
- 20020506:      For violation of Article 134 (Wrongful possession of invalid ID card).
- 20021205 :       For the following deficiencies: On you unsatisfactory performance of duties by not maintaining Marine Corps weight standards.




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. Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16F), effective 1 September 2001 until Present, Paragraph 1005, DISCHARGE FOR EXPIRATION OF ENLISTMENT OR FULFILLMENT OF SERVICE OBLIGATION .
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 134 (Wrongfully possess, with intent to deceive) and Article 134 (Wrongfully and falsely alter a light duty chit) .



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

Applicant’s Issues

 1. Employment opportunities.
2. Reenlistment opportunities.
 3 . Record of service.
4. Discharge due to having a hard time in maintaining his weight.

Decision


 Date: 20 0 9 0430            Location: Washington D.C .         R epresentation :

By a vote of the Characterization shall .
By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall .
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 paragraphs concerning and s , regarding .

For the Applicant’s edification , he is eligible for reenlistment but will require CMC authority to do so. The Board recommends he contact a local recruiter to discuss this option if he desires to serve in t he military again.

Issue 3 : ( ) . The Applicant contends his discharge characterization should be honorable based on his record of service because he did three tours in Iraq. 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 four retention warnings and two NJP’s for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 134 (Wrongfully possess, with intent to deceive, a military ID card) and Article 134 (Wrongfully and falsely alter a light duty chit) . These v iolation s of Article 134 are considered serious and 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 pursue a punitive discharge but allowed the Applicant to serve out his enlistment contract . The Board acknowledges the Applicant’s service with the Marine Corps and his multiple tours into Iraq. However, the Applicant received the retention warnings, 2 NJPs and proficiency and conduct marks of 4.0/3.8 respectfully, which are not typically indicative of service members receiving an “Honorable” conditions discharge. The awarded discharge was appropriate under the circumstances for this case and the NDRB determined an upgrade based on the record of service would be inappropriate.

Issue 4: ( ) . The Applicant contends his discharge was due to having a hard t ime maintaining his weight. In reviewing the Applicants discharge, it was noted it was not related in any way to a weig ht problem , but was due to your overall proficiency and conduct marks. F or the Applicant’s edification, an “ Honorable ” characterization is appropriate when the quality of the Marine’s service has met the standards of accepted conduct and performance of duty for military personnel. Typically the characterization will be honorable for Marines with average proficiency marks of 3.0 or higher and average conduct marks of 4.0 or higher. Characterization s should reflect a “G eneral (Under Honorable Conditions) ” for Marines with average proficiency marks below 3.0 and average conduct marks below 4.0. The separation authority may determine a fully honorable characterization of service is warranted, however, this discretion should only be used if the Marine’s service is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would clearly be inappropriate. The separation authority did not deem this warranted in the Applicant’s case. As the Applicant’s overall conduct mark of 3.8 fell below the established threshold of 4.0, the “General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge was warranted. The NDRB determined an upgrade based on the Applicant’s weight issue was without merit and would be inappropriate.

For the Applicant’s edification, 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 DD Form 293, no documentation was provided for review. 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.

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, 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 | 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 | MD0600136

    Original file (MD0600136.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Applicant statements and actions are in violation of Marine Corps standards of conduct. ]050317: Applicant’s Unconditional Waiver of Administrative Discharge Boardsubmitted to Commanding General, Marine Corps Base Hawaii.050317: Commanding Officer, 3 rd Radio Battalion recommended to Commanding General, Marine Corps Base Hawaii, Applicant’s discharge under other than...

  • USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0500882

    Original file (MD0500882.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD05-00882 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20050419. • I was also awarded the Marine Corp Good Conduct Medal on 3 Jun 89 (while I was on the weight control program) – just one year before my separation. However, I feel the characterization of my service for separation purposes was based solely on the Pro/Con marks (3.3/2.9) I received immediately following the above referenced NJP proceedings – without regard to the nature of my previous service for...

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0900548

    Original file (MD0900548.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The NDRB therefore determined 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 Pertinent Regulation/Law A. ” Additional Reviews : Subsequent to a document review, former members are eligible...

  • USMC | DRB | 2015_Marine | MD1401464

    Original file (MD1401464.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 UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS and the narrative reason for separation shall remain MISCONDUCT. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review...

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0902571

    Original file (MD0902571.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Decisional issue: (Equity) Applicant contends that his discharge characterization of service was inequitable in that he was wrongfully separated as a weight control failure. The Separation Authority (Commanding General, 2nd Force Service Support Group) reviewed the two different bases of separation (Misconduct (Pattern of Misconduct) and Weight Control Failure) and directed the Applicant’s separation for Weight Control Failure with a characterization of service as Under Honorable Conditions...

  • USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0601193

    Original file (MD0601193.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Service Record Entries, Medical Record Entries, Elements of Discharge and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found the Applicant’s discharge proper and equitable. UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS (20050817) SJA review (date): (20050907)Separation Authority (date): COMMANDING GENERAL, MARINE AIR GROUND TASK FORCE TRAINING (20050907)Narrative Reason directed: Characterization...

  • USMC | DRB | 1998_Marine | MD98-00437

    Original file (MD98-00437.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16E, effective 950818), Table 6-1, Guide for Characterization of Service, states characterization of service for a Marine separated under the provisions of paragraph 6215, weight control failure is either honorable or general (under honorable conditions) as determined by the Marine's service record. The discharge shall remain: UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL)/WEIGHT CONTROL FAILURE;authority: MARCORSEPMAN 6215.The applicant was...

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0900403

    Original file (MD0900403.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: Substance Abuse: Criminal Records: Family/Personal Status: Community Service: References: Additional Statements:From Applicant:From Representation: From Congress member: Other Documentation: DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL...

  • USMC | DRB | 2014_Marine | MD1400679

    Original file (MD1400679.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...