Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0901968
Original file (MD0901968.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-, USMC
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20090707
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:                           Active:  

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 19970603     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Months
Date of Discharge: 19991218      H ighest Rank:
Length of Service :        Y ea r ( s ) M on th ( s ) 16 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 40
MOS: 3500
Proficiency/Conduct M arks (# of occasions): /          Fitness R eports:

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      NONE

Periods of UA / CONF :

NJP:

SCM:

SPCM:

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 :     




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

Applicant’s Issues

 1. Discharge erroneous because he was not in an unauthorized absence (UA) status, but drilling with another unit.
2. Post-service conduct .
Decision


 Date: 20 10 0610            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 included no misconduct that resulted in nonjudicial punishment (NJP) or court-martial. Per the Reserve Absence 984 Remarks report dated 30 April 1999, the Applicant missed 12 drill periods between 5 December 1998 and 7 February 1999 , with the Marine Wing Support Squadron 472 Detachment B (MWSS 472 Det B), Mt. Clemens, Michigan. All attempts by MWSS 472 Det B to contact the Applicant were unsuccessful. Subsequently, his MWSS 472 Det B processed him for administrative separation by reason of unsatisfactory participation in the Selected Marine Corps Reserve. The unit mailed the notification package to the Applicant but it was returned unclaimed, and thereby waiving his rights to consult with a qualified counsel, submit a written statement, and request an administrative board .
Issue 1 : (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends his d ischarge was erroneous because he was not in an unauthorized absence (UA) status with MWSS 472 Det B , but had orders to Weapons Company, 1 st Battalion, 24 th Marines , Perrysburg, Ohio, a nd had been drilling with them. He provided several witness statements, including a letter from the Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps, Performance Evaluation Review Branch, Manpower Management Division, stating the Applicant’s record was reviewed and determined he should not have been discharged for failure to participate, as he was regularly drilling with Weapons Company, 1 st Battalion, 24 th Marines, Perrysburg, Ohio. Accordingly, the Applicant’s reentry code would be changed to RE-1A from RE-4. The NDRB contacted the Performance Evaluation Review Branch at Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps, to query how they determined the Applicant was drilling with the Weapons Company in Perrysburg, Ohio. Their decision was based on a statement from a CWO5 , who was assigned to the MWSS 472 Det B that processed the Applicant for separation , and a statement from a sergeant who was assigned to the W eapons Company that the Applicant stated he was drilling with. No other documentation was available. The Applicant provided those statement s to the NDRB and a statement from his town’s postmaster general stating the notification letters sent to the Applicant did have the wrong city name and because they came back as unclaimed may have been delivered elsewhere. (The NDRB interpreted unclaimed letters as those certified letters that are delivered to a residential address, but no one claims the letter. The NDRB noted the address used had the same zip code. ) The Applicant also stated his service record book (SRB) was kept by MWSS 472 Det B when he was being processed with them in an attempt to resolve his UA status. The Applicant was not able to provide any documentation regarding his reserve pay (e.g., leave and earning statements, IRS tax documentation) and attendance within the unit (e.g., muster sheets, unit plan of the days, unit recall rosters, and proficiency and conduct marks). After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the NDRB d etermined the documented evidence was insufficient to determine whether or not he actually drilled with the Weapons Company. The NDRB discerned no impropriety in the discharge action and the characterization of the Applicant’s service was warranted. Relief denied.

Issues 2: (Decisional) ( ) PARTIAL . The Applicant contends h e is now “a family man who works six days a week to provide for my wonderful wife and child.” The NDRB considers post-service conduct to determine if the misconduct committed during active duty was indicative of the Applicant's character or an aberration. The Applicant provided sever al letters of reference and verification of employment . The NDRB determined the Applicant’s post-service documentation was in sufficient to support an upgrade to Honorable. However, after a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the NDRB determined the documented evidence was sufficient to support a partial upgrade based on equitable grounds.

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 the discharge was proper and equitable at the time of discharge. However, based on equitable grounds, the awarded characterization of service shall GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS), but 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 6213 of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16E), effective 18 August 1995 until
31 August 2001.

B. Marine Corps Reserve Administrative Management Manual, MCO P1001R.1, Chapter 3, Reserve Participation and Administrative Procedures, paragraph 300.

C. Table 6-1 of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16E), effective 18 August 1995, 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

  • USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1100302

    Original file (MD1100302.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. Relief granted.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 is not eligible for additional reviews or hearings by the NDRB. ” Additional...

  • USMC | DRB | 2007_Marine | MD0700821

    Original file (MD0700821.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The copy submitted by Applicant appears to indicate in paragraph 4.b. In contrast to the Applicant’s submission however, the Board found in the Applicant’s electronic service record a copy of the same document that contained the Applicant’s initials on the line next to the choice “do NOT” with no other annotations, corrections or writing. ” Additional Reviews : Subsequent to a document review, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application is...

  • USMC | DRB | 2014_Marine | MD1400747

    Original file (MD1400747.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Based on the Applicant failing to participate in required reserve drills, 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. There is no requirement or law that grants recharacterization solely on the issue of obtaining veterans benefits and this issue does not...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600967

    Original file (ND0600967.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ex-SA, USN-RND06-00967Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request: Application Received: 20060713Narrative Reason for Separation: in the ready reserve Character of Service: Discharge Authority: MILPERSMAN 1910-158 and milpersman 1910-304 Last Duty Assignment/Command at Discharge: naval reserve CENTER CLEVELAND OHIOApplicant’s Request:Narrative Reason change to: NONE requestedCharacterization change to:Review Requested:Representation: designated Decision: Date of Decision:20070426 The Discharge...

  • USMC | DRB | 2012_Marine | MD1200664

    Original file (MD1200664.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The NDRB reviewed all of the available records, supporting documents, facts, elements of discharge, and post-service statements and documentation submitted by the Applicant and determined that clemency was not warranted. 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0500264

    Original file (MD0500264.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :940722: Enlistment contract into the USMCR documents acknowledgement of the requirement to participate in 48 scheduled drills and not less than 14 days of annual training per year for 6 years upon completion of initial active duty training.980208: Letter of intent to administratively separate under...

  • USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-00938

    Original file (MD03-00938.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD03-00938 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030430. The Petitioner never at any time ‘just left” California or his responsibilities with the Marine Corps Reserves. Based upon the above, the Petitioner respectfully requests that this Honorable Board set aside said administrative discharge, correct petitioner’s DD-214 to reflect a discharge characterization of Honorable, reflect a separation code of FND (unqualified resignation) and a reenlistment...

  • USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1100495

    Original file (MD1100495.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT Applicant’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 and the narrative reason for separation shall .The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing for a period of fifteen years from the date of...

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0902112

    Original file (MD0902112.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant contends he should have received a hardship discharge because he could not financially afford traveling to his reserve unit in Amarillo, TX (221 miles) and under USMCR regulations, he is eligible if his reserve unit is more than 150 miles away. The NDRB found no specific eligibility requirement in the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual (MARCORSEPMAN) for a hardship discharge based on the distance to a member’s reserve unit. ” Additional Reviews : After a document...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2014_Navy | ND1400389

    Original file (ND1400389.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...