Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1001728
Original file (MD1001728.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-, USMC
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20100629
Characterization of Service Received:
Narrative Reason for Discharge: DISABILITY, EXISTED PRIOR TO SERVICE
Authority for Discharge: MARCORSEPMAN 8404

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

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive:         USMCR (DEP)       19970415 - 19970617     Active:  

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 19970618     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Months
Date of Discharge: 19980930      H ighest Rank:
Length of Service : Y ea r M on th s 01 D a y
Education Level:        AFQT: 80
MOS: 0311
Proficiency/Conduct M arks (# of occasions): ( ) / ( )    Fitness R eports:

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      Rifle

Periods of UA /CONF :       UA 19971224 - 19980103 (11 days)         UA 19980505 - 19980506 (1 day )

NJP:

- 19980123:      Article 86 (Absence without leave, UA, 19971224 - 19980104, 11 days)
         Awarded: FOR RESTR EPD Suspended: NONE

 - 19980527 :      Article (Insubordinate conduct toward a warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer), 2 specifications
         Specification 1: Disrespectful in language after being formally dismissed
         Specification 2: Disrespectful to an NCO by his actions and language
         Article 107 (False official statement, made a false official statement to a G unnery S ergeant)
         Awarded: RIR (to E-1) FOP RESTR EPD Suspended: FOP (1 month)

- 19980912 :      Article 91 (Insubordinate conduct toward a warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer, disobeyed an order fr o m a C orporal to put down a wine bottle and leave the area)
         Awarded: FOP RESTR EPD Susp ended: RESTR EPD

SCM:     SPCM:    CC:

Retention Warning Counseling :

- 19980126:      For recent NJP related to violation of UCMJ Article 86 (Absence without leave).

- 19980624:      For continued display of apathetic attitude . His reluctance to improve his position within the platoon due to the fact he has not shown any sign of determination or integrity.

- 19980626 :       For insubordinate conduct toward a noncommissioned officer (UCMJ Article 91).

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

The NDRB note d an administrative error on the original DD Form 214:
         “ DISABILITY, EXISTED PRIOR TO SERVICE ”
        
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 8404, DISABILITY, EXISTED PRIOR TO SERVICE of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16E), effective 31 January 1997 until 31 August 2001.

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 503, Equity .

C. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part II, Para 204, Jurisdictional Limitations Authority for Review of Discharges.



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

Applicant’s Issues

 1.       Applicant contends his medical injury related discharge was inequitable.
2.       Applicant contends his post-service achievements warrant consideration for a discharge upgrade.

Decision

Date: 20 1 1 10 20            Location: Washington D.C .         R epresentation : NONE

By a vote of the Characterization shall .
 By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall DISABILITY, EXISTED PRIOR TO SERVICE .

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 identif ied two decisional issues for the Board ’s consideration . T he Board complete d 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 included three 6105 retention counseling warnings . The record also reflected nonjudicial punishments (NJP) for o f the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 86 ( Absence without leave, 24 Dec 1997 to 4 Jan 1998, 11 days, terminated by his surrender ), Article 91 ( Insubordinate conduct toward a noncommissioned officer, 3 specifications: disrespectful language after being formally dismissed; disrespectful actions and language; and disobeyed an order from a Corporal to put down a wine bottle and leave the area ) . The Applicant’s record also revealed that he was granted enlistment into the Marine Corps after physical evaluation of significant injuries he sustained as a child. However, after boot camp and school of infantry training, he began to experience increasing pain and tenderness in his right foot. He was placed on limited duty (Apr-Jul 1998) and referred for a medical evaluation board (MEB), which determined that the Applicant was unfit for further continued service . The Applicant’s case was then referred to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) in Washington , DC for final review and adj u dication , which occurred on 13 Aug 1998 . After careful analysis and deliberation, the PEB determined the findings of the local MEB to be correct, that the Applicant was unfit for further service, and further stating that the Applicant’s disability , which existed prior to service , may be permanent . On 17 Aug 1998, the A pplicant accepted the preliminary findings of the PEB. The Applicant was subsequently administratively separated from the Marine Corps on 30 Sep 1998 with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge due to Disability, Existed Prior to Service.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends his medical injury related discharge was inequitable. 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 as determined by a PEB, the action of the NDRB is restricted to matters of equity related to the characterization of service at discharge; the NDRB does not have jurisdictional authority to change the finding of a PEB. In response to the Applicant ’ s request for review, determinations by the PEB are presumed to be established facts by the NDRB. As such, the Applicant's request for review was considered under the pertinent standards of equity to determine if any factors in this particular case merited a change in the assigned characterization of service at discharge.
The Applicant was separated from the military service pursuant to paragraph 8 4 04 of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual (MARCORSEPMAN) – Discharge for disability existing prior to service. The Secretary of the Navy PEB made the determination for discharge due to disability, which was approved by the Commandant of the Marine Corps who then directed the Applicant be discharged. The Applicant was discharged subsequently by his local command and received a General (Under Honorable Conditions) characterization of service with an assigned reentry code of RE-3P - recommended for reenlistment by the Commanding Officer upon removal of the disqualifying factor. T he Applicant’s service record included three 6105 retention counseling warnings and NJP s for of UCMJ Article s 86 and 91. Per the MARCORSEPMAN, a n H onorable characterization of service is warranted when the quality of a member’s service generally meets the standard of acceptable conduct and performance for naval personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other

characterization of service would be clearly inappropriate. A G eneral ( U nder H onorable C onditions) discharge is warranted when the quality of the member’s service has been honest and faithful but significant negative aspects of the member’s conduct or performance of duty outweighed the positive aspects of the member’s service record. After careful consideration, the Board found that the Applicant’s discharge to be equitable and in accordance with the applicable orders and directives in effect at the time of his discharge. Relief denied.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends his post-service achievements warrant consideration for a discharge upgrade. The NDRB considers post-service conduct in order to determine if the misconduct committed during active duty was indicative of the Applicant ’ s character or an aberration. However, there is no law or regulation, that provides an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Normally, to permit relief, a procedural impropriety or inequity must have been found to have existed during the period of enlistment in question. In his letter to the NDRB, the Applicant provide d evidence of H onorable discharge from his service in the U.S. Army (8 months, 8 May 2001) and the Iowa National Guard (8 months, 21 Aug 2000). Although the Applicant’s attempts to continue military service are commendable, his post-service achievements need to be more encompassing. The Applicant could have provided documentation as specified in the Post-Service Conduct paragraph in the Addendum, c ompletion of these items alone does not guarantee a discharge upgrade as each discharge is reviewed by the Board on a case by case basis. After detailed examination and deliberation, the Board determined the awarded characterization of service shall remain General ( Under Honorable Conditions ) . 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 narrative reason for separation shall remain DISABILITY, EXISTED PRIOR TO SERVICE . 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 for additional information.


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 | 2010_Marine | MD1002227

    Original file (MD1002227.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 | 2010_Marine | MD1002352

    Original file (MD1002352.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. 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 narrative reason for...

  • USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1002096

    Original file (MD1002096.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 | 2011_Marine | MD1101733

    Original file (MD1101733.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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1002114

    Original file (MD1002114.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Due to the serious nature of the misconduct, the NDRB determined an upgrade would be inappropriate.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. ...

  • USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1101042

    Original file (MD1101042.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1002311

    Original file (MD1002311.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant properly and equitably received a General (Under Honorable Conditions) characterization of service for his active-duty service from August 2002 to August 2006 as explained above.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entries and the completion of required active service separation process, the Board found the discharge was proper and equitable. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been...

  • USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1000694

    Original file (MD1000694.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to: Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive:USMCR (DEP)20001130 - 20010708Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Current Enlistment: 20010709Age at Enlistment: Period of Enlistment: Years MonthsDate of Discharge:20050817Highest Rank: Length of Service: Years Months0 DaysEducation Level: AFQT:36MOS: 0151Proficiency/Conduct Marks (# of occasions):(14)/(14)Fitness Reports: Awards and Decorations (per DD...

  • USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1001817

    Original file (MD1001817.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. 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 . ”...

  • USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1001852

    Original file (MD1001852.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 does not have the authority to change a narrative reason for separation to one indicating a medical disability or other...