Upgrade.Vet

USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0901026

Original file (MD0901026.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)       19980420 - 19980726     Active:

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment: 19980727     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Months
Date of Discharge: 20030429      H ighest Rank:
Length of Service : Y ea r ( s ) M on th ( s ) 19 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 76
MOS: 1142
Proficiency/Conduct M arks (# of occasions): 4.2 / 3.0      Fitness R eports:

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      Rifle

Pre-trial CONF : 20010819-20010911 (24 DAYS)

NJP:     SCM:

SPCM:

- 20010912 :       Art icle 86 (UA 19991220 until 20010819 (608 DAYS) )
         Sentence : BCD CONF 75 DAYS FOP RIR E-1

CC:

Retention Warning Counseling :

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 P1900.16F), 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 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 , more than 30 days ) .

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

Applicant’s Issues

1. Applicant requests consideration for m itigating circumstances —both parents fell ill with potentially life threatening hea r t condition s .

Decision

Date: 2009 0917 Location: Washington D.C . R epresentation :

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

Discussion

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 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 discharg e if such change is warranted. With respect to a discharge adjudged by court-martial, the action of the NDRB is restricted to upgrades based on clemency —an act of leniency that reduces the severity of the punishment imposed. During clemency reviews , relevant and material facts stated in a court-martial specification are presumed by the NDRB to be established facts. 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 included Special court-martial ( ) for of the Uniform Code of Military Justice ( UCMJ ) : Article 86 ( UA , 608 days, apprehended by civilian authorities ) , in which he was sentenced to a Bad Conduct Discharge and 75 days confinement. At the SPCM, the Applicant was represented by counsel.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends in his application for discharge upgrade that both of his parents fell ill with potentially life threatening heart condition s (in Hawaii) , which was the reason for his misconduct ( UA for 608 days ) until his eventual apprehension by civilian authorities . In reviewing the records from the Applicant’s c ourt- m artial, the Board noted the Applicant ’s omission of health concerns involving his mother within his testimony, but he did note his father ’s open heart surgery as his reason for not return ing to his unit in Okinawa , Japan . When queried by the Judge for more information on his father, the Applicant noted , “Well, my father recovered quite dramatically from the surgery, after about six or eight months and I decided to leave Honolulu and return to California” and “I remained in California for the entire period of time that I was UA.” W hen asked during his court-martial how his UA period ended, the Applicant replied that he was “apprehended at the border between Washington and Victoria, Canada. ” The se statements made by the Applicant during his court-martial clearly conflict with his application to the NDRB and the mitigating circumstances alleged .

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

USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801847

Original file (MD0801847.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Board is looking for actions that go beyond simply daily livingSince the Applicant did not provide any post service documentation the Board determined clemency was not warranted and an upgrade at this time 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...
NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1101014

Original file (ND1101014.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to: Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive:USNR (DEP)20001212 - 20010819Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Current Enlistment: 20010820Age at Enlistment:Period of Enlistment: YearsExtensionDate of Discharge:20040803Highest Rank/Rate:ABHANLength of Service: Years Months14 DaysEducation Level:AFQT: 33EvaluationMarks:Performance:3.5(4)Behavior:3.3(4)OTA: 3.29Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):NDSM SSDR...
NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1200163

Original file (ND1200163.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

of controlled substances, Marijuana, 29 ng/ml)Sentence: RIR FOP CONF 30 days SPCM:CC:Retention Warning Counseling:1- 20010816:Forunauthorized absence 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...
USMC | DRB | 2007_Marine | MD0700769

Original file (MD0700769.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 two nonjudicial punishment for a violation of UCMJ Article 86 (Unauthorized Absence) and Article 92 (Failure to obey an order or regulation) andone Summary Court Martial finding of guilty for Article 112a (Wrongful use of a controlled substance). After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the...
USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1100292

Original file (MD1100292.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Secretary of the Navy Clemency and Parole Board reviewed the results of the Applicant’s court-martial and determined that clemency was not warranted. Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entries, post service documents, the record of trial by Special Court-Martial, and the discharge process, the NDRB determined that Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall BAD CONDUCT DISCHARGE and the narrative...
NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1000022

Original file (ND1000022.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 | 2009_Marine | MD0900800

Original file (MD0900800.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

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. ” Additional Reviews : Subsequent to a document review,...
USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801300

Original file (MD0801300.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Based on this, the Board determined an upgrade is not warranted:() .The Applicant claims his misconduct was a result of his youth and immaturity. ” 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. If a former member has been discharged for more than 15 years, has already been granted a personal appearance hearing or has otherwise...
USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0900802

Original file (MD0900802.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Specific recommendation include following the unit’s drill schedule.- 19990110: For following deficiencies: UA for Jan 1999 drill weekend. The NDRB determined the awarded discharge characterization 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, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found ADDENDUM: Information for the Applicant Complaint Procedures...
USMC | DRB | 2014_Marine | MD1401203

Original file (MD1401203.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Based on the offense(s) committed by the Applicant, command administratively processed for separation. 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 has been...

Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0901026

Similar Decisions