Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0900691
Original file (MD0900691.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)       20000621 - 20001009     Active:  

Period of Service Under Review:
 Date of Enlistment: 20001010     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Months
Date of Discharge: 20021101      H ighest Rank:
Length of Service : Y ea r ( s ) M on th ( s ) 23 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 37
MOS: 3052
Proficiency/Conduct M arks (# of occasions): ( ) / ( )    Fitness Reports:

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      Rifle

Periods of UA / CONF : UA: 20010523-20010528 (4days)

NJP:
- 20010619 :      Article 86 (UA)
         Article 91 (Insubordinate conduct toward noncommissioned officer), 3 specifications
         Article 92 (Disobey a lawful order)
          Awarded CCU for 7 days Suspended:

- 20011025 :      Article 86 ( UA, fail to go ) , 2 specifications
         Awarded: Suspended:

- 20020520 :      Article 86 (UA)
         Article 92 (Disobey a lawful order), 2 specifications
          Awarded: Suspended: for 3 months

- 20020619 :      Article 86 (UA, fail to go), 2 specifications
         Found in the NAVMC 118-12 (REV 8-87)

SCM:     SPCM:    CC:

Retention Warning Counseling:

- 20010531 :       For being informed that I may be processed for separation under one of the following two categories: Minor d isciplinary actions (documented series of at least 3 minor disciplinary infections) during current enlistment, which would have been disciplined, under Art 15 of the UCMJ. Pattern of misconduct (pattern of more serious infractions including 2 or more infractions).


- 20011019:      For failure to maintain height/weight standards , y ou r weight in at 193 lbs . and your max weight is 186 lbs. Your body fat percentage is 22%.

- 20011120:      For concerning poor judgment and conduct, this is prejudicial toward good order and discipline of military service.

- 20020222:      For unsat isfactory progress while assigned to weight control.

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

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

         “ 2000/10/10 ”
         “ 02/00/23 ”

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 91 ( Insubordinate conduct toward noncommissioned officer ) and Article 92 ( Disobey a lawful order).



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

Applicant’s Issues

 1. Would like my RE Code changed to RE- 1.
2. To pursue a great job.

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 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 paragraphs concerning Employment/Educational Opportunities s, regarding .

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 four NJP’s for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 86 (UA), 6 specifications; Article 91 ( Insubordinate conduct toward noncommissioned officer ), 3 specifications and Article 92 ( Disobey a lawful order), 3 specifications . Violations of Article 91 and Article 92 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 pursue a punitive discharge but instead opted for an administrative discharge based on misconduct as established by a pattern of misconduct. The Applicant provided no documentation in support of his request and the NDRB determined the awarded discharge characterization was appropriate; an upgrade 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 | 2009_Navy | ND0900888

    Original file (ND0900888.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.Based on an isolated incident in 37 months of service. discharge. ” 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.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900581

    Original file (ND0900581.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board determined the awarded discharge was appropriate and 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900201

    Original file (ND0900201.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 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 further review. After a thorough review of the available evidence, to...

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0902484

    Original file (MD0902484.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The General Court Martial Convening Authority affirmed all three reasons for separation, directed a characterization of service of Under Other than Honorable Conditions due to significant negative aspects of conduct, and further directed that the primary basis for separation reporting was Misconduct, Due to a Pattern of Misconduct. The evidence of record does not demonstrate the Applicant was not responsible for his conduct, or that he should not be held accountable for his actions.By a...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801516

    Original file (MD0801516.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Types of Documents Submitted/reviewedRelated 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 (Describe): DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700009

    Original file (ND0700009.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant’s service was marred by a summary court martial, three nonjudicial punishments and a retention warning for violations of UCMJ Articles 86 (unauthorized absence, 6 specifications), 87 (missing movement), 90 (willfully disobeying a superior commissioned officer), 91 (insubordinate conduct, 2 specifications), and 92 (failure to obey, 2 specifications). Elements of Discharge: [INVOLUNTARY] Date Notified: NOT FOUND IN RECORD Reason for DischargeNOT FOUND IN RECORDLeast Favorable...

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0900206

    Original file (MD0900206.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant provided no documentation or further evidence in support of his request to be upgrade to “Honorable.” The Board determined the awarded discharge characterization was appropriate and an upgrade is 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0900938

    Original file (MD0900938.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT Applicant’s Issues 1. Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, service record entries, discharge process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found By a unanimous vote of 5-0, the Board determined the characterization of service received, Under Other Than Honorable Conditions, and the narrative reason for 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 | 2007_Navy | ND0700386

    Original file (ND0700386.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Medical and Service Record Entries, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found that Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive: USNR (DEP)20000127 - 20000208Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 20000209Years Contracted:; Extension: Date of Discharge:20030815 Length of Service: 03 Yrs 06Mths06 DysLost Time:Days UA: Days Confined: Education...