Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0901526
Original file (MD0901526.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: 20010507     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years
Date of Discharge: 20051209      H ighest Rank:
Length of Service:
         Inactive:        Y ea r ( s ) M on th ( s ) 21 D a y ( s )
         Active:  Y ea r ( s ) M on th ( s ) 14 D a y ( s )
 Education Level:        AFQT: 8 1
MOS: 0612
Proficiency/Conduct M arks (# of occasions): ( ) / ( )    Fitness R eports:

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      Rifle AFRM

Periods of UA / CONF :

NJP: SCM: SPCM: CC:

Retention Warning Counseling :

- 20050422: For unsatisfactory participation (per OIC, P/WST West Palm Beach, FL, letter of 20050606)

 - Undated : For unsatisfactory participation specifically, missing IDTs without excusal on the following dates: 20050513, 20050514, 20050515, 20050602, 20050603, 20050604, and 20050605 . [Not available for signature]

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. Never received notification of the competency review board or advised of her rights.
2. Did notify her command.

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 FAILURE TO PARTICIPATE .
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 g overnment al a ffairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the Applicant. The Applicant’s record of service did not include any misconduct that resulted in nonjudicial punishment or court-martial. Between 13 May 2005 and 11 September 2005, the Applicant missed 25 inactive duty training (IDT) drill periods. Based on these unexcused absences, her command administratively processed her for separation. The command sent the notification of separation processing to the Applicant via certified mail (# 7003 1680 0001 0394 6468) on 8 November 200 5, but it was refused on 17 November 2005 and returned to sender. Subsequently, the Commanding General, Marine Corps Mobilization Command, directed that the Applicant be administratively separated from the Marine Corps.

 : (D ecisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends she n ever received notification of the competency review board or advised of her rights. The NDRB has no authority over decisions made by a competency review board. Furthermore, the NDRB found no evidence, nor did the Applicant provide any, that a competency review board was ever convened. Based on the evidence of record, the Applicant’s command did try to notify her by letter, email and telephone, but she failed to communicate with them. It is the member’s responsibility to notify their command of any changes of their contact information. The Board determined the Applicant’s issue is without merit.

Issue 2 : (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends her discharge was improper because she did notify her command that she desired to continue drilling and had made se veral attempts drill with them. The Applicant state d she notified “MobCom in Nov 2005 that [ she ] had been traveling and would return in late Jan 2005 and would make up any missed drill periods at that time. ” Per the letter dated 6 June 2005, the Officer-in-Charge (OIC) (P/WST West Palm Beach, FL) stated the Applicant had been absent without authorization from ten drill periods after completing active duty orders in early March 2004. H e had counseled the Applicant via telephone on 22 April 2005 regarding her unsatisfactory participation , and that the 4 th Air Naval Gunfire Liaison Company (ANGLICO) did not want her to remain with the unit based on her “disruptive conduct during your active duty period.” The OIC did offer to assist her in transferring to another unit of her choice. The OIC also spoke to the Applicant on 2 May 2005; and had sent an email to her on 16 May 2005 and left a voicemail on 2 June 2005—both with no reply. In his statement dated 6 December 2005, the legal chief at Mobilization Command (MOBCOM), Kansas City, stated he had received the Applicant’s unsatisfactory participation package in July 2005 and found that she “had not been accounted for at a drill muster period since January of 2004.” After reviewing the evidence of record, the NDRB determined the Applicant did have contact with her command but never rescheduled any missed drill periods, and therefore, met the requirements to be administratively separated for unsatisfactory participation in the Ready Reserve. The NDRB also determined the award ed characterization of service wa s warranted.

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 her 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 6213 of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16E), effective 1 September 2001
until Present.

B. Marine Corps Reserve Administrative Management Manual, MCO P1001R.1, Chapter 3, Reserve Participation and Administrative Procedures, paragraph 3300.

C. Table 61 of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16F), effective 1 September 2001, Guide for Characterization of Service.

 D . 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 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.
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 | 2008_Navy | ND0801056

    Original file (ND0801056.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The second incident occurred in the hotel where the drilling reservists stay during drill periods. The Board determined an upgrade 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 in your case is unclear, not responsive to the issues...

  • USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0500919

    Original file (MD0500919.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. ” Documentation In addition to the service and medical records, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Request for RIDT/EIOD, dtd February 29, 1996 Request for RIDT/EIOD, dtd February 1, 1996 Check-out sheet (SMCR Personnel), dtd May 3, 1997 Six pages from Applicant’s service record Applicant’s DD Form 214 for service ending...

  • USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1100324

    Original file (MD1100324.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment or educational opportunities as regulations limit the NDRB’s review to a determination of the propriety and equity of the discharge. Relief denied.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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2007_Marine | MD0700191

    Original file (MD0700191.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After a complete review of the entire record, including the evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board determined that the discharge was appropriate and that the evidence of post-service conduct was found not sufficient to mitigate its assessment of the conduct which precipitated the 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0901281

    Original file (MD0901281.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 29 December 2004, the Applicant made contact with his unit--evidence that the command’s attempts to communicate with the Applicant were well-placed. 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 UNSATISFACTORY PARTICIPATION IN READY RESERVE. ”...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004 Marine | MD04-00046

    Original file (MD04-00046.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the Applicant’s service was discovered by the NDRB. Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :980615: Enlistment contract into the USMCR documents acknowledgement of the requirement to participate in 48...

  • USMC | DRB | 2014_Marine | MD1401074

    Original file (MD1401074.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    To ensure that the unit and the MDR are kept informed of the Marine's status, the member is required to provide medical documentation every 30 days from the member's attending physician or other medical clinic providing service. ” 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 does not...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1301391

    Original file (ND1301391.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 | 2010_Marine | MD1001391

    Original file (MD1001391.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    50 scheduled drill periods, the command recommended that she be separated administratively from the Selected Marine Corps Reserve to the Separation Authority – Commander, Marine Forces Reserve. ” 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. There is no requirement or law that grants recharacterization...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2015_Navy | ND1500191

    Original file (ND1500191.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. 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 HONORABLE and the narrative reason for separation shall remain UNSATISFACTORY PARTICIPATION. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been...