Upgrade.Vet

USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0900850

Original file (MD0900850.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-, USMC

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20022409

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)       19990129 - 19990216     Active:

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment: 19990217     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Months
Date of Discharge: 20010830      H ighest Rank:
Length of Service : Y ea r ( s ) M on th ( s ) 18 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 45
MOS: 1300
Proficiency/Conduct M arks (# of occasions): 3.1 (3) / 2.4 (3)    Fitness Reports:

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      Rifle

Periods of UA : 19990719-19990912 (52 Days)
CONF: 19990908-19990914

NJP:

SCM:

SPCM:
- 19991026 :      Article 86 (U nauthorized absence, Apprehended - 52 Days)
                  Sentence: BCD; CONF 45 DAYS

CC:

Retention Warning Counseling:

Types of Documents Submitted/reviewed

Related to Military Service:
DD 214:      Service / Medical Record: Other Records:
         -Record of trial dated 26 October 1999.

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 1105, DISCHARGE ADJUDGED BY SENTENCE OF COURT-MARTIAL , of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16E), effective 18 August 1995 until 31 August 2001.

B. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part IV, Para 403m(7)(a), Presumption Concerning Court-Martial Specifications .

C . 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 .

D . 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 ) .

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

Applicant’s Issues

1. Reenlistment o pportunities .
2. Employment o pportunities .
3. Record of Service (n o specific issues) .

Decision

Date: 20 0 9 0528 Location: Washington D.C . R epresentation :

By a vote of the Characterization shall .
By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall COURT-MARTIAL .

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 , and , regarding .

: ( ) . The Applicant did not identify any additional issues to the Board. However, the Board did complete a thorough review of the circumstances which led to his discharge and the discharge process to ensure his discharge met the pertinent standards of equity and propriety. In response to the Applicant’s clemency request, relevant and material facts stated in a court-martial specification are presumed by the NDRB to be established facts. With respect to a discharge adjudged by a court-martial case, 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 Applicant’s case was considered under the pertinent standards of equity to determine if any factors in this particular case merited clemency. The Applicant’s record of service was marred by one SPCM for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 86 (Unauthorized absence: a pprehended after 52 days). Violation of Article 86 is considered a serious offense and in the Board ’ s opinion, the Applicant would have stayed away longer had he not been apprehended by the Louisville Police Department on a traffic violation. The Board determined clemency would be inappropriate.

The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in consideration if a case warrants clemency. Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent such matters provide a basis for clemency, are considered during Board reviews. Supporting doc umentation to help support post- service clemency 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; attending or completion of higher education (official transcripts) and documentation of a drug- free lifestyle. The Applicant is advised that completion of these items alone does not guarantee clemency will be granted, as each discharge is rev iewed by the Board on a case-by-case basis to determine if post- service conduct justifies clemency.

Besides the Applicant’s statement on the DD Form 293, he failed to provide any additional documentation and evidence on his behalf. The Applican t could have produced post-service evidence as stated in the above paragraph with the full understanding that completion of these items alone does not guarantee clemency. The Board determined the characteriza tion of service received, Bad Conduct Discharge, was an appropriate characterization considering the length of service and the UCMJ violations involved , and without any post- service documentation clemency would be inappropriate

After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Service Record Entries , Discharge Process and DD Form 293 submitted by the Applicant, t he Board found clemency was not warranted and the sentence awarded the Applicant at his court-martial was appropriate for the offenses he committed.

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 NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment or educational opportunities. Regulations limit the NDRB ’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 NDRB 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 NDRB 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 | 2009_Marine | MD0900615

Original file (MD0900615.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Board determined the characterization of service received, Bad Conduct Discharge, was an appropriate characterization considering the length of service, the UCMJ violations involved, and lack of post-service documentation.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 clemency was not warranted and the sentence awarded the Applicant at his...
USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0900566

Original file (MD0900566.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Board determined clemency was not warranted.Issue 3: (Clemency) RELIEF NOT WARRANTED. The Board determined the characterization of service received, “Bad Conduct Discharge”, was an appropriate characterization considering the length of service and the UCMJ violations involved, and based on the lack of post service documentation provided, clemency would be inappropriate After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Service Record...
USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0900680

Original file (MD0900680.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: Pertinent Regulation/Law A. Paragraph 6210, MISCONDUCT , of the Marine Corps Separation and...
USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1000765

Original file (MD1000765.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Regulations limit the NDRB’s review to a determination of the propriety and equity of the discharge in administrative separations or clemency in the case of a court-martial-awarded punitive discharge.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entries, Special Court-Martial Record of Trial and punitive discharge process, the Board found the discharge was equitable at the time of discharge. ” Additional Reviews : After a...
USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0900212

Original file (MD0900212.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant is advised that completion of these items alone does not guarantee clemency will be granted, as each discharge is reviewed by the Board on a case by case basis to determine if post service conduct justifies clemency. The Board determined the characterization of service received, “Bad Conduct Discharge”, was an appropriate characterization considering the length of service and the UCMJ violations involved, and based on the lack of post service documentation provided, clemency...
USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0900683

Original file (MD0900683.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to: Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive:USMCR (DEP)19931001 - 19931114Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 19931115Age at Enlistment: Period of Enlistment: Years MonthsDate of Discharge:19941019Highest Rank: Length of Service:Year(s)Month(s)05Day(s)Education Level: AFQT:42MOS: 0311Proficiency/Conduct Marks (# of occasions):()/()Fitness Reports: Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):Rifle...
NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801147

Original file (ND0801147.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant has requested an upgrade of his discharge characterization to “General (Under Honorable Conditions)” for reenlistment eligibility. The Board determined based on the lack of post service documentation provided clemency was not warranted and an upgrade would be inappropriate; the characterization of service received, “Bad Conduct Discharge ” , was an appropriate characterization considering the time served and the nature of the UCMJ violations involved.After a thorough review of...
NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900515

Original file (ND0900515.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Board determined the awarded discharge characterization was appropriate and an upgrade would be inappropriate.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 Entries, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found ADDENDUM: Information for the Applicant Complaint Procedures : If you believe that the...
USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801692

Original file (MD0801692.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant should be aware completion of these items alone does not guarantee an upgrade from 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.Besides the personal statement provided on the DD Form-293, the Applicant failed to provide any other supporting documents in his behalf. The Board determined the characterization of service received, “Under...
NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900782

Original file (ND0900782.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to: Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive:USNR (DEP)20010224 - 20010530Active: 20010531 – 20030929 HON Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 20030930Age at Enlistment: Period of Enlistment: YearsExtensionDate of Discharge:20061003Highest Rank/Rate: ET2Length of Service: Year(s)Month(s)03 Day(s)Education Level:AFQT: 73EvaluationMarks:Performance:2.5(4)Behavior:2.6(6)OTA: 2.45Awards and Decorations (per...

Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0900850

Similar Decisions