Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0900992
Original file (MD0900992.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-, USMC
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20090311
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)       19920925 - 19921012     Active:  

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment: 19921013     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Months
Date of Discharge: 19980320      H ighest Rank:
Length of Service : Y ea r ( s ) M on th ( s ) 08 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 55
MOS: 2531
Proficiency/Conduct M arks (# of occasions): ( ) / ( )    Fitness R eports:

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      Rifle Pistol UNM A FEM

NJP:
- 19931113 :       Article 86 (UA 0700, 19931025-1600, 19931026 (1 day) )
         Awarded: Suspended:

- 19941107 :      Article 86 (UA)
         Awarded: Suspended:

- 19950425 :      Article 86 (UA), 2 specifications
         Specification 1: 0630, 19950331-1100, 19950405 (5 days)
         Specification 2: 1130-1509, 19950412 ( 3 hours, 39 minutes)
         Awarded: Suspended: Vacate suspension 19950508

- 19950629 :      Article 86 (UA), 3 specifications
         Specification 1: 0630, 19950529
         Specification 2: 0630, 19950618
         Specification 3: 2200, 19950617-0532, 19950618 (7 hours, 32 minutes)
         Awarded: Suspended: Vacate suspension 19950629

SCM:

SPCM:

- 19970306 :       Art icle 86 (UA 19950911-19961221 ( 468 days))
         Sentence : FOP CONF FOR 100 DAYS (19961222-19970313 ( 82 days) ) BCD

CC:

Retention Warning Counseling :

- 19941118 :       For pattern of misconduct as evidenced by 2 NJPs. These violations reflect poor judgment, cohesion and is an indication of severe lack of discipline.

- 19950629 :       Concerning suspended punishment award at NJP on 19950425 being vacated as a result of repeated failure to make restriction musters. Also needs to show more discipline in my career.

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 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 .




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

Applicant’s Issues

 1. Applicant’s misconduct was d ue to a family crisis .
2. Applicant d id not receive proper support from the command.
3 . Applicant believes some of his problems came from the racial issues he was undergoing during that time.

Decision


 Date: 20 0 9 0903            Location: Washington D.C .         R epresentation :

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

 The NDRB, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge, is authorized to change the character of service and the reason for discharge if such change is warranted. In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the Applicant . The Applicant’s record of service included 6105 adverse counseling warnings, non-judicial punishments for o f the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 86 ( UA , ranging from 1 day to 5days ), seven specifications ; and for of the UCMJ: Article 86 ( UA , 19950911- 19961221 (468 days)) . Based on the offense(s) committed by the Applicant, command administratively processed for separation. The NDRB did not have access to the Applicant’s administrative separation package to determine whether or not the Applicant waived rights to consult with qualified counsel, submit a written statement, and r equest an a dministrative b oard.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends that his problems in the Marine Corps can be attributed to a "family crisis." Specifically, the Applicant claims he went UA in September 1995 until December 1996 (468 days) due to his father suffering a stroke i n 1994. The Board noted within the Applicant’s court-martial transcript that the Applicant’s father had suffered no change in his condition and was being care for by his spouse when the Applicant went UA. While the Applicant may feel that his family crisis was the underlying cause of his misconduct, the record clearly reflects his willful misconduct and demonstrated he was unfit for further service. Relief denied .

Issues 2-3 : (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends he did not received proper support from the command and that he believed some of his problems came from racial issues . The government enjoys a presumption of regularity in the conduct of its affairs. The Applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support his issue. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the Applicant produced any evidence, to support the contention that the command did not provide any support or evidence of any racism issues within the command. The Applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity in this case. 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. The Applicant is directed to the Addendum, specifically the paragraphs titled Additional Reviews, Automatic Upgrades, and Post-Service Conduct .]



ADDENDUM: Information for the Applicant

 Complaint Procedures : If you believe 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 : 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. 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. There are veterans organizations such as the American Legion and the Association of Service Disable Veterans that are willing to provide guidance to former service members in their efforts to obtain a discharge upgrade. If a former member has been discharged for more than 15 years, has already been granted 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 U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determines eligibility for post-service benefits, not the NDRB. 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.
Employment/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 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 is processed subsequently for an administrative involuntary separation or is referred to a court martial for misconduct, the disability evaluation is suspended pending the outcome of the non-disability proceedings. If the action includes either a punitive or administrative discharge for misconduct or for any basis wherein an Other Than Honorable discharge is authorized, 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 BCNR can grant this type of narrative reason change.

 Automatic Upgrades - There is no law or regulation that provides for an unfavorable discharge to be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct subsequent to leaving naval service.

Post-Service Conduct : The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. 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 support a post-service conduct upgrade includes, but is not limited to: a verifiable continuous employment record; marriage and children’s birth certificates (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; attendance at 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 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 in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member’s overall character.

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

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0701197

    Original file (ND0701197.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 ” 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. Yes No Not found in record Was retention warning required for reason for separation?

  • NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1000904

    Original file (ND1000904.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It also included summary courts-martial for of the UCMJ: Article 86 (Unauthorized absence, 12 specifications) and Article 134 (Breaking restriction, 2 specifications).Based on the offenses committed by the Applicant, command administratively processed for separation.When notified of administrative separation processing using the procedure, the Applicant waived rights to consult with a qualified counsel, submit a written statement, and request an administrative board. Relief denied.Summary:...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0701075

    Original file (ND0701075.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board determined that the documentation provided by the Applicant did not mitigate the misconduct which resulted in the Applicant’s discharge and characterization of his service. Appeal denied 19921002: Vacated previously suspended punishment due to continued misconduct.19921002: NJP – Violation of UCMJ Article 86 (unauthorized absence, three specifications): 0630 19920919 UA from restricted muster, 0630 19920922 UA from restricted muster, 0630 19920923 Awarded - FOP ($100/month for two...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1000951

    Original file (ND1000951.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 | 2004_Navy | ND04-01041

    Original file (ND04-01041.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND04-01041 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20040607. 900710: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (21 specifications): UA from pre-trial restriction muster. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 19930222 with a bad conduct discharge which was the sentence adjudged by a properly convened special court-martial.

  • USMC | DRB | 2014_Marine | MD1400203

    Original file (MD1400203.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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1001003

    Original file (ND1001003.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Representation: By a vote of the Characterization shall .By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall Discussion The NDRB, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge, is authorized to change the character of service and the reason for discharge if such change is warranted.In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include...

  • USMC | DRB | 2015_Marine | MD1401662

    Original file (MD1401662.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/To Congress member: Pertinent Regulation/Law A. Summary: After a...

  • USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1100283

    Original file (MD1100283.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 5 Dec 1996, the Separation Authority directed that the Applicant be separated from the Marine Corps with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge due to Pattern of Misconduct. The discharge was effected on 10 Dec 1996.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entries and the administrative separation process, the Board found Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall and the narrative reason for...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1201485

    Original file (ND1201485.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Separation Authority, after reviewing the facts and circumstances of the Applicant’s service, ordered the Applicant to be administratively separated Under Other Than Honorable Conditions for Misconduct (Drug Abuse).Issues 1-3: (Decisional) (Propriety) RELIEF NOT WARRANTED. After subsequent misconduct, his command notified him of administrative separation for Misconduct (Drug Abuse), Misconduct (Serious Offense), and Misconduct (Pattern of Misconduct). Relief denied.Summary: After a...