Upgrade.Vet

USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1001033

Original file (MD1001033.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-, USMC

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20100223

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)       2004 0 310 - 20040808     Active:

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20040809     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Months
Date of Discharge: 20061201      H ighest Rank:
Length of Service : Y ea r ( s ) M on th ( s ) 14 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 72
MOS: 0311
Proficiency/Conduct M arks (# of occasions): / Fitness R eports:

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      Rifle

Periods of UA/Conf: (3) 20050103-20050106 ; (170) 20050228-20050817 ; (47) 20051215-20060131

NJP:

- 20050108:       Article 86 (UA 200 50103 -200 5 010 6, 3 days )
         Article 91 (Insubordinate conduct toward a Warrant Officer, Non-commissioned Officer, or Petty Officer)
         Awarded : Susp ended:

SCM:

SPCM:

- 20051214 :       Art icle (Unauthorized absence from unit 20050228-20050817 , 170 days )
         Sentence : CONF 90 days 20051215-20060131, 47 days)

CC:      Retention Warning Counseling :

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

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

“ (47) 20051215-20060131; (170) 20050228-20050817; (3) 20050103-20050106 ”

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:          Rehabilitation/Treatment:                  Criminal Records:
         Personal Documentation :          Community Service:                References:
         Department of VA letter:                  Oth er Documentation:
                  Additional Statements :
         From Applicant:          From /To Representation:          From /To Congress m ember :

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 (NDRB)
DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT

Applicant’s Issues

1.       Nondecisional issues: The Applicant seeks an upgrade/change in the characterization of his service at discharge in order to facilitate employment with the Denver Police Department.

2.       Decisional issues : The Applicant did not identify any decisional issues related to equity for consideration by the NDRB.

Decision

Date: 20 1 1 0 429         Location: Washington D.C .         R epresentation :

By a vote of the Characterization shall .
By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall .

Discussion

In reviewing discharges, the NDRB 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 service record indicates he entered military service at age 22 on a 4-year enlistment contract under an Infantry Training enlistment guarantee. The Applicant’s enlistment record reflects his entry into military service with pre-service waiver s for illegal drug use (marijuana) and adjudicated serious traffic offenses. The Applicant acknowledged his complete understanding of the Marine Corps Policy Concerning Illegal Use of Drugs, in writing, on 08 March 2004. The highest rank achieved by the Applicant during his enlistment wa s E-2/Private First Class.

The Applicant’s period of service under review reflects no 6105 retention-counseling warnings and one nonjudicial punishment for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice : Article 86 (Unauthorized Absence, 3 days) and Article 91 ( Insubordinate conduct toward a Non-commissioned Officer or Petty Officer) . Additionally, t he Applicant’s service record contain s a punitive punishment as adjudged by a S pecial C ourt -M artial dated 14 December 2005 . The Applicant was subject to Special Court - Martial f or violation of Article 86 (Unauthorized absence, 170 days) ; he was represented by a qualified legal defense counsel during his trial by Special Court-Martial. I n accordance with a signed pre-trial agreement, the Applicant agreed to request trial by military judge alone and further elected to plead guilty to the charge of violation of Article 86 . In consideration , the convening authority agreed to limit any adjudged period of confinement to no more than 60 days. Given the facts of the case, the trial judge awarded the Applicant a Bad Conduct Discharge, order he be confined for a period of 90 days, ordered a forfeiture of pay , and reduced the Applicant in rank to E-1/Private . The case was submitted for review with out assignment of error to the U.S. Navy–Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals; it was reviewed and the findings were affirmed on 18 September 2006 . Subsequently, the Navy - Marine Corps Appellate Leave Activity ordered the Bad Conduct Discharge executed on 30 November 2006 . Besides his DD Form 293, the Applicant provided a personal statement and certification of non involvement with civil authorities in his state of residence .

Nondecisional issue - The Applicant seeks an upgrade in his characterization of service at discharge in order to better his opportunities for employment with local law enforcement agencies. There is no requirement, or law, that grants re-characterization based solely on the issue of enhancing employment or educational opportunities. 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.

Board Issue: (Clemency/Equity) - RELIEF NOT WARRANTED. The Applicant contends that he warrants clemency regarding the characterization of his service at discharge by submission of his request for review; however, the Applicant did not identify an y specific issues of in equity for the NDRB’s consideration. The NDRB conducted a thorough review of the

Applicant ’ s discharge under the pertinent standards of equity to determine if any factors in this particular case merited clemency. The Applicant’s service record documents a n onjudicial p unishment for Unauthorized Absence while assigned to the Infantry Training Branch, School of Infantry ( West ) . The Applicant was retained and given an opportunity to return to training and complete his service - honorably. Having completed his entry level military occupational specialty school, the Applicant was re- assigned to 2d Battalion, 7th Marines for duty . Twenty-three days after arrival, the Applicant absented himself from his appointed place of duty, without proper authority, and did so remain absent until he surrendered himself to his unit 170 days later .

The NDRB recognizes that many of our service members are young at the time they enlist for service, but most manage to serve honorably. While we understand some members may be less mature than others, the NDRB does not view immaturity to be a mitigating factor or a sufficient reason for misconduct, especially repetitive misconduct. The NDRB determined that the Applicant’s youth or immaturity was not a mitigating factor in this case . Moreover, t he NDRB found the evidence of record, along with the Applicant’s statements, did not contain sufficient mitigating or extenuating factors to offset the seriousness of the offenses for which the discharge was awarded. Given the extensive period of unauthorized absence, coupled with the repetitive and deliberate nature of the misconduct , the NDRB agreed unanimously that the punishment , as awarded , was equitable and that relief in the form of clemency was not warranted. 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 NDRB determined that Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall BAD CONDUCT DISCHARGE 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 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

NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0800018

Original file (ND0800018.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

After assuring compliance with MILPERSMAN 1910-170 the separation authority directed the Applicant’s discharge by reason of physical standards with a service characterization of general (under honorable conditions). The Applicant’s conduct reflects his willful failure to meet the requirements of his contract with the U.S. Navy and falls far short of that required for an upgrade in his characterization of service. ” Additional Reviews : Subsequent to a document review, former members are...
USMC | DRB | 2007_Marine | MD0700721

Original file (MD0700721.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 to mitigate 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 the Applicant. Applicant...
NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1000142

Original file (ND1000142.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 | 2009_Marine | MD0901727

Original file (MD0901727.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Also, 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. A request for a waiver can be submitted during the processing of a formal application for reenlistment through a recruiterSummary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, medical and service record entries, discharge process and...
NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1301190

Original file (ND1301190.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

ND13-01190 RR DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT APPLICANT’S ISSUES 1. Given the facts of the case, the Special Court-Martial awarded the Applicant a Bad Conduct Discharge and confinement for a period of 3 months, with 45 days suspended due to his pre-trial agreement. Additionally, the NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities.
NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1101072

Original file (ND1101072.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant could have provided documentation as specified in the Post-Service Conduct paragraph in the Addendum , however, completion of these items alone does not guarantee an upgrade from an unfavorable discharge as each discharge is reviewed by the Board on a case by case basis to determine if post-service conduct establishes a reason to change the characterization or narrative reason. The NDRB determined clemency was not warranted. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has...
USMC | DRB | 2007_Marine | MD0700038

Original file (MD0700038.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Record of service. (2005001219) SJA review (date): (20060309)Separation Authority (date): COMMANDING GENERAL, 1 ST MARINE DIVISION (REIN) (20060313) Basis for discharge directed: due to: Characterization directed: Date Applicant Discharged: 20060317 Additional Documents Submitted by Applicant and Considered By BoardTotal Number of Pages: 5 Related to Period of Service Under Review: From Service and/or Medical Record: Other Records: Related to Other Period(s) of Service: From Service and/or...
USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0601193

Original file (MD0601193.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Service Record Entries, Medical Record Entries, Elements of Discharge and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found the Applicant’s discharge proper and equitable. UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS (20050817) SJA review (date): (20050907)Separation Authority (date): COMMANDING GENERAL, MARINE AIR GROUND TASK FORCE TRAINING (20050907)Narrative Reason directed: Characterization...
NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801291

Original file (ND0801291.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

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 conduct mitigates the reason for the characterization of discharge.The Applicant provided a personal statement and as evidence of post-service accomplishments. The Board determined the characterization of service received, “General (Under Honorable Conditions)”, was an...
NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1000378

Original file (ND1000378.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...

Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1001033

Similar Decisions