Upgrade.Vet

USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0901597

Original file (MD0901597.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-, USMC

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20090514
Characterization of Service Received:

Narrative Reason for Discharge: DISABILITY, SEVERENCE PAY
Authority for Discharge: MARCORSEPMAN 8401

Applicant’s Request:     Characterization change to:
         Narrative Reason change to:

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive:        USMCR (DEP)      20071005 - 20071125      Active:

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20071126      Age at Enlistment:
Period of Enlistment : Years Months
Date of Discharge: 20090330       H ighest Rank:
Length of Service: Year(s) Month(s) 05 D ay(s)
Education Level:         AFQT: 71
MOS: 8011
Proficiency/Conduct Marks (# of occasions): (3) / (3)             Fitness Reports:

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):     Rifle

Periods of UA : 20080513 – 20080520 ( 8 days )

NJP:
- 20080529 :      Article (U nauthorized absence from appointed place of duty 20080513 – 20080520, 8 days)
         Awarded: Suspended:

SCM: SPCM: CC:

Retention Warning Counseling:
- 20080616:      For violation Article 86 (UA), on 20080513, you did not report to physical therapy appointment. Instead, you proceeded off the installation (Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri) and went to Dixon, Illinois .

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 Representation:              From Congress member:
         Other Documentation:

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A. Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16F CH 2), effective 06 June 2007, paragraph 8401 DISABILITY DISCHARGE WITH SEVERANCE PAY.

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 .

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

Applicant’s Issues

1.       The Applicant seeks an upgrade for educational benefits.
2.       The Applicant believes his disability did not warrant the discharge he received.

Decision

Date: 2010 0506 Location: Washington D.C. R epresentation :

By a vote of the Characterization shall .
By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall DISABILITY, SEVERENCE PAY.

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 Board did complete a thorough review of the circumstances which led to discharge and the discharge process to ensure discharge met the pertinent standards of equity and propriety. The Applicant’s record of service included 6105 counseling warning and for o f the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 86 (Unauthorized absence - instead of going to physical therapy, the Applicant left the installation in Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri and went to Dixon, Illinois for 8 days). The NDRB attempted to gain access to the Applicant’s medical record, but was unsuc cessful. The NDRB then queried the Physical Evaluation Board for any information on th e Applicant since he received severance pay for hi s medical issue. It was noted that he which was diagnosed as patella femoral pain syndrome, which results in pain and/or discomfort in the knee. Based on the Applicant’s medical issue, command administratively processed for separation. The NDRB did not have the Applicant’s administrative separation package to determine whether or not the Applicant waived rights to consult with a qualified counsel or to submit a written statement for consideration by the separating authority.

: (Nondecisional) The Applicant seeks an upgrade for educational benefits. 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.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends his disability did not warrant the discharge he received. The NDRB examined very closely the records on hand, but without the Applicant’s discharge package, the NDRB presumes that the command acted properly with regards to the discharge. The NDRB opined that the Applicant willfully left his appointed place of duty, which was to attend physical therapy for his knee (the medical issue he was discharged for) and traveled over 400 miles (7 hours driving time) to Dixon, Illinois. Due to the nature of the Applicant’s misconduc t , the NDRB opined that the characterization of service was warrant ed. 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 DISABILITY, SEVERENCE PAY. 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, Employment/Educational Opportunities 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.

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 | 2012_Marine | MD1201701

Original file (MD1201701.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Board did complete a thorough review of the circumstances that led to discharge and the discharge process to ensure discharge met the pertinent standards of equity and propriety.The Applicant’s record of service includeda medical diagnosis and disability evaluation that determined she was unfit for further military service and recommended administrative separation for a physical disability. Relief granted.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the...
NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801274

Original file (ND0801274.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

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 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...
USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1102102

Original file (MD1102102.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. Based on the determination of a disability, command administratively processed for separation. ” 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.
USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1100500

Original file (MD1100500.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT Applicant’s Issues 1. Therefore, the NDRB determined the characterization of service will change to Honorable with no change to the narrative reason for separation. ” 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.
USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0900929

Original file (MD0900929.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Regulations limit the NDRB’s review to a determination of the propriety and equity of the discharge.After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the NDRB discerned no impropriety in the discharge action, but did discern an inequity in the characterization of the Applicant’s service; specifically, the awarding of a General discharge when the Applicant’s documented proficiency and conduct were clearly within the standard for an...
USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1100590

Original file (MD1100590.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT Applicant’s Issues 1. By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall DISABILITY WITH SEVERANCE PAY.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...
USMC | DRB | 2013_Marine | MD1301851

Original file (MD1301851.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to: Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive:USMCR (DEP)20071115 - 20071217Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Current Enlistment: 20071218Age at Enlistment: Period of Enlistment: Years MonthsDate of Discharge:20091030Highest Rank:Length of Service: Year(s)Month(s)13 Day(s)Education Level: AFQT:84MOS: NFIRProficiency/Conduct Marks (# of occasions):Fitness Reports: Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):Rifle...
USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1101962

Original file (MD1101962.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Regulations limit the NDRB’s review to a determination of the propriety and equity of the discharge.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 DISABILITY, SEVERANCE PAY.The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing for a period of fifteen years...
USMC | DRB | 2013_Marine | MD1301230

Original file (MD1301230.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.
USMC | DRB | 2013_Marine | MD1300924

Original file (MD1300924.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

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. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been...

Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0901597

Similar Decisions