Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0901314
Original file (MD0901314.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-, USMC
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20090415
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)       20050727 - 20051023     Active:  

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment: 20051024     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Months
Date of Discharge: 20070924      H ighest Rank:
Length of Service : Y ea r ( s ) M on th ( s ) 0 1 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 45
MOS: 3051
Proficiency/Conduct M arks (# of occasions): /          Fitness R eports:

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      Rifle

Periods of UA / CONF :

NJP:
- 20060711 :       Article 92 ( Failure to obey an order or regulation )
                  Awarded : Susp ended:

- 20070308 :       Article 92 ( Failure to obey an order or regulation )
                  Awarded : RESTR Susp ended:

- 20070801 :       Article 92 ( Failure to obey an order or regulation )
         Article 111 (Operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol)
                   Awarded : Suspended:

SCM:

SPCM:

CC:

Retention Warning Counseling :

- 20060712 :       For deficienc y in underage alcohol consumption and the punishment for violating this order.

- 20070319 :       For deficiencies in fa i lure to be at your place of duty that was early Intervention class aboard MCAS Beaufort.

- 20070801 :       For deficiency in underage drinking, willful and unauthorized misuse of Armed Forces identification card and drunken operation of a motor vehicle .

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

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

         “ JKA1 ”

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 :





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

Applicant’s Issues

 1. Was young and immature.
2. Since discharge, he has stayed out of trouble.

Decision

 Date: 20 0 9 0706            Location: Washington D.C .         R epresentation :

By a vote of the Characterization shall .
By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall MISCONDUCT .
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 three retention warnings and three nonjudicial punishments (NJPs) for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice: Article 92 (Failure to obey an order , 4 specifications including und erage drinking and misuse of an Armed Forces Identification card ) and Article 111 ( Operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol). Based on the offenses committed by the Applicant, command administratively processed for separation. When notified for Administrative Separation Processing, the Applicant waived right to consult with qualified counsel and elected to submit a written statement.

 : (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends his problems in the Marine Corps can be attributed to mistakes when he was young by saying , “I had the mind set of a twelve year old. I was not mentally ready for the Marine Corps…” While he may feel his youth was the underlying cause of his misconduct, the record of evidence does not demonstrate the Applicant was not responsible for his misconduct or should not be held accountable for his actions due to youth or immaturity. The Board recognizes the Applicant’s c ommand could have easily given the Applican t a less favorable discharge, but chose a more favorable one to ensure continued treatment for alcohol dependence as well as medical treatment for injuries the Applicant sustained in a motor vehicle accident.

In addition, the Applicant’s overall Proficiency/Conduct marks were 4.0/3.6, respectively. Standards of performance and conduct as determined by MCO P1610.7 series, Performance Evaluation System, MCO P1070.12 series, Individual Records Administration Manual (IRAM), and customs of the service form the primary basis for determining characterization of service. Minimum acceptable average proficiency and conduct markings during an enlistment are 3.0 and 4.0 respectively. Failure of a Marine to achieve either of these standards is evidence of significant negative aspects, outweighing all but the most meritorious military records. Marines who do not achieve these standards should not receive an honorable discharge.

Issue 2: (Decisional) ( ) . Since his discharge, the Applicant contends he has stayed out of trouble, has been employed for the same employer for over a year, and no longer drinks to suppress his feelings. Besides the Applicant’s statement on the DD Form 293, he failed to provide any additional documentation and evidence on his behalf to support a post-service conduct review. The Applicant’s statements alone, without sufficient documentary evidence, are not enough to form a basis of relief. On page 4, Item 8, i n the instructions for completion of DD Form 293, the Applicant is notified to submit evidence “which substantiate or relate directly to your issues in Item 6.” (Issues: Why an upgrade or change is requested and justification for the request). Additionally, when the DD Form 293 is received, the Applicant is mailed the NDRB’s Information Concerning Review Procedures, which discusses the submission of additional documents in paragraph 3, Submission of Evidence, and in the last section on page 4, Information Pertaining to a Review Based Upon Post-Service Conduct. However, even if the Applicant could have produced additional evidence to support a review based on his post-service conduct, the Applicant must have a full understanding that post-service conduct alone does not guarantee an upgrade.

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 .

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 .


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 | 2014_Marine | MD1400360

    Original file (MD1400360.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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2012_Marine | MD1201238

    Original file (MD1201238.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1000448

    Original file (MD1000448.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 . ” 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2014_Marine | MD1400863

    Original file (MD1400863.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After an exhaustive review, including the five character references provided by the Applicant, the NDRB determined PTSD and TBI did not mitigate his misconduct, and his discharge was proper and equitable. ” 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2007_Marine | MD0701093

    Original file (MD0701093.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board determined that the documentation provided by the Applicant did not mitigate the circumstances that resulted in the characterization of discharge.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. 20050318: Vacate FOP for 1 month, Restr and Extra duties for 45 days awarded at NJP dated 20050116.20050331: MARCORSEPMAN 6105...

  • USMC | DRB | 2014_Marine | MD1400274

    Original file (MD1400274.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The record also shows the Applicant had significant misconduct during his misconduct, including a violation of the Marine Corps zero-tolerance drug policy, which requires mandatory processing for administrative separation. Further, administrative discharge processing is administrative in nature and not considered a form of punishment. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application is...

  • USMC | DRB | 2014_Marine | MD1400629

    Original file (MD1400629.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. With this misconduct, the Applicant met the requirements to be administratively separated for Misconduct (Serious Offense) and Misconduct (Pattern of Misconduct). ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance...

  • USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1001405

    Original file (MD1001405.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant received an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions characterization of his service at discharge and was further advised that he was not recommended for re-enlistment. Based on a review of the evidence and circumstances unique to this case, the NDRB determined that the Applicant’s misconduct properly satisfied the requirements established for separation based on the commission of a serious offense as the basis for discharge. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0901268

    Original file (ND0901268.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to: Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive:USNR (DEP)19970821 - 19970919Active:19970920 - 2001090220010903 - 2005070620050707 - 20081023 Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 20081024Age at Enlistment:Period of Enlistment: YearsExtensionDate of Discharge:20090330Highest Rank/Rate:OS2Length of Service: Year(s)Month(s)07 Day(s)Education Level:AFQT: 51EvaluationMarks:Performance:5.0(1)Behavior:2.0(1)OTA:...

  • USMC | DRB | 2013_Marine | MD1301725

    Original file (MD1301725.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.