Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0901524
Original file (MD0901524.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-, USMC
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20090512
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:         NONE               Active:  

Period of Service Under Review:
 Date of Current Enlistment: 20000124     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Months
Date of Discharge: 20040721      H ighest Rank:
Length of Service : Y ea r ( s ) M on th ( s ) 28 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 42
MOS: 0351
Proficiency/Conduct M arks (# of occasions): ( ) / ( )    Fitness Reports:

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      Rifle

Periods of UA :          NJP:     SCM:    CC:

SPCM:

- 20010619 :      Article 112a (Drugs – ecstasy), 2 specifications
         Sentence : BCD 60 days ( 20010609 – 20010725, 37 days )
         CA’s Action: Portion of the sentence adjudging all confinement in excess of 45 days is suspended for a period of six months.

Retention Warning Counseling:

- 20010108 :       For substandard performance and therefore not recommended for advancement to CPL.

- 20010515 :      For illegal drug involvement identified through urinalysis.

- 20010607 :      For unauthorized absence from restriction.


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 .


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

Applicant’s Issues

 1.       Was told that upgrade was possible after two years.
2. Trying to obtain a job.
3. Post-service conduct.

Decision


 Date: 20 10 0204            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. 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. 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. 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 three 6105 counseling warning s and one special court-martial for violation o f the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 112a ( Wrongful use of a controlled substance, ecstasy – 2 specifications). The sentence adjudged by the military judge on 19 June 2001 was as follows: reduction to pay grade E-1, confinement for 60 days, forfeiture of $695.00 per month for two months, reduction to E-1 and a bad conduct discharge. Pursuant to a pretrial agreement all confinement in excess of 45 days was suspended. The Applicant requested waiver of appellate review and the sentence was approved on 12 April 2002. The Applicant acknowledged complete understanding of the Marine Corps Policy Concerning Illegal Use of Drugs on 21 January 2000 .

: (Nondecisional) The Applicant is requesting an upgrade to Honorable and contends his counsel informed him that it was possible after two years. Additionally, he is trying to obtain employment with the Department of Corrections. 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. Furthermore, t he 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 equity of the discharge.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant also contends that since being discharged he has accomplished the following: attend ed school for auto technology and graduat ed at the top of his class, remained drug free, and has been employed for the past three years. The Applicant did not submit any documentary evidence for the Board’s consideration . 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.


T he Board determined clemency was not warranted and that the sentence awarded the Applicant at his court-martial was appropriate for the offenses he committed taking into consideration the issues submitted, statement of post service accomplishments, the seriousness of the Applicant’s misconduct, and the lack of documentation of post-service accomplishments. T he Applicant’s statement regarding post-service conduct without documentation to support the same, was not sufficient 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, upon receipt of the Applicant’s DD Form 293 , the NDRB mails an acceptance letter that includes the 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 should be aware 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 .



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 Disable d American 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 their 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.
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.


 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 | MD0900235

    Original file (MD0900235.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT Applicant’s Issues 1. Propriety and clemency. ” 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.

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0901242

    Original file (MD0901242.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. On page 4, Item 8, in 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). ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0800759

    Original file (MD0800759.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ” 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 exhausted his opportunities before the NDRB, the Applicant may petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR), 2 Navy Annex, Washington,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801709

    Original file (ND0801709.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant has requested an upgrade to his discharge characterization to “Honorable”. The awarded discharge characterization was determined to be appropriate, an upgrade to honorable 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2015_Marine | MD1500101

    Original file (MD1500101.rtf) Auto-classification: 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 remain BAD CONDUCT DISCHARGE and the narrative reason for separation shall remain COURT-MARTIAL. ” 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2012_Marine | MD1200061

    Original file (MD1200061.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/ToCongress member: DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD...

  • USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1000418

    Original file (MD1000418.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    As regulations limit the NDRB’s review solely to a determination of clemency under the pertinent standards of equity, this issue does not serve to provide a foundation upon which the Board can grant relief. Relief denied Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entries, the verbatim transcript record of trial by Special Court-Martial, and the discharge process, the Board found that Therefore, the awarded...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2015_Navy | ND1500615

    Original file (ND1500615.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Given the facts of the case, the Special Court-Martial awarded the Applicant a Bad Conduct Discharge, reduction to (E-1), forfeiture of pay, and confinement for 120 Days. 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 BAD CONDUCT and the narrative reason for separation shall remain COURT-MARTIAL. ” Additional...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801917

    Original file (MD0801917.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT Applicant’s Issues 1. The Applicant is requesting a discharge upgrade, because “I’ve learned from my mistake, and I’m trying to get this weight off my shoulders.” 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. ” Additional Reviews :...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2014_Navy | ND1400400

    Original file (ND1400400.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...