Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1002214
Original file (MD1002214.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-, USMC
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20100908
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)       20060408 - 20060625     Active:  

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20060626     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Months
Date of Discharge: 20070919      H ighest Rank:
Length of Service : Y ea r M on ths 25 D a ys
Education Level:        AFQT: 74
MOS: 9900
Proficiency/Conduct M arks (# of occasions): 1.9 ( NFIR ) / 1.5 ( NFIR )      Fitness R eports:

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      Rifle MM NDSM

Period of CON F : NFIR

NJP: NONE         SPCM: NONE       CC: NONE         Retention Warning Counseling : NONE     

SCM: 1
- 20070806 :       Art icle 86 (Absence without leave, 20061025 - 20070720, 268 days, apprehended)
         Sentence : RIR FOP CONF 30 days

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. The Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16F, effective 1 September 2001 until Present, Paragraph 6210, MISCONDUCT.

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 .

C. The Manual for Courts-Martial authorizes the award of a punitive discharge if adjudged as part of the sentence upon conviction by a special or general court-martial for violation of the UCMJ, Article 86 (UA for greater than 30 days) .


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

Applicant’s Issues

 1.       The Applicant seeks an upgrade to re-enlist in the Armed Forces.
2.       The Applicant contends youth and immaturity contributed to his misconduct.
3 .       The Applicant contends he should have received an U ncharacterized discharge , because he believes he was not on active duty for more than 180 days since he went UA after only four months of service .
4.       Post-service conduct.

Decision

Date: 20 1 1 12 14            Location: Washington D.C .         R epresentation : none

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 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 one summary court-martial for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice ( UCMJ ) : Art icle 86 (Absence without leave, 20061025 - 20070720, 268 days, apprehended). Based on the offense committed by the Applicant, his command administratively processed him for separation. When notified of a dministrative separation processing using the administrative board procedure, the Applicant waived his rights to consult with a qualified counsel, submit a written statement, and request an administrative board .

: (Nondecisional) The Applicant seeks an upgrade to re-enlist in the Armed Forces. 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 B oard for Correction of Naval Records 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.
: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends that his youth and immaturity contributed to making the wrong choice to enter into a period of unauthorized absence for 268 days , which ended in apprehension. T he record clearly reflects that the Applicant was responsible for his actions when he chose to go UA and should be held accountable . Further, the record reflects willful misconduct and that the Applicant had no potential for further service . Violation of Article 86 in excess of 30 days is a serious offense that could have resulted in a much longer period of confinement and a punitive discharge if adjudicated at special court-martial. The NDRB found the Applicant was fortunate to have received relatively light punishment and administrative discharge rather than the punitive measures that are typically awarded for similar misconduct. The NDRB determined the Applicant ’ s youth or age was not a mitigati ng factor in his misconduct. Relief denied.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends he should have received an U ncharacterized discharge , because he believes he was not on active duty for more than 180 days since he went UA after only four months of service. The Applicant’s issue is without merit. While in a UA status, military members are stil l part of the A rmed F orces. UA time is considered to be lost time , which would have been added to the end of the Applicant’s enlistment if he were retained. The Applicant was considered to still be on active duty while he was in a UA status. Relief denied.







Issue 4: (Decisional) (Equity) RELIEF NOT WARRANTED. The Applicant contends he has been working full-time, attending college, and has stayed out of trouble since his discharge. The Applicant failed to provide any documentary evidence on his behalf for post-service consideration. The Applicant could have provided documentation as detailed in the Post-Service Conduct paragraph in the Addendum with the recognition that 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 that the in-service misconduct was an aberration. Without post-service documentary evidence, the Board determined the awarded characterization of service shall remain Under Other Than Honorable Conditions.
Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s s ummary of s ervice, r ecord e ntries, and d ischarge p rocess, 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. The Applicant is directed to the Addendum, specifically the paragraphs titled Additional Reviews, Automatic Upgrades, 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 | 2010_Marine | MD1000049

    Original file (MD1000049.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 record of service included for of the UCMJ: Article 86 (Unauthorized absence, 48 days, apprehended,1 specification).Based on the Applicant’s conviction and sentence at special court-martial, the Applicant was confined and separated with a Bad Conduct characterization of service.The Applicant provided no documentation to support a...

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0901002

    Original file (MD0901002.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    ex-, USMC Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request Application Received: 20090310 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) 20020930 - 20030706 Active: 20030707 – 20061014 HON Period of Service Under Review: Date of Current Enlistment: 20061015 Age at Enlistment: Period of Enlistment: Years...

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0900866

    Original file (MD0900866.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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.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 response to the Applicant’s clemency request, relevant and material facts...

  • USMC | DRB | 2012_Marine | MD1200661

    Original file (MD1200661.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board determined the evidence provided did demonstrate that the Applicant’s post-service conduct over the eight years since his discharge was of such good character as to warrant an upgrade to Honorable and a change to the narrative reason to Secretarial Authority. : (Decisional) () The Applicant contends he was the victim of his recruiter’s scheme to get him into the Marine Corps.This issue was not considered as the Board granted full relief in Issue 1.Summary: After a thorough review...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0901512

    Original file (ND0901512.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Based on the offenses committed by the Applicant, command administratively processed for separation based on a pattern of misconduct. The Board determined there was sufficient evidence to separate him due to a pattern of misconduct based on the evidence of record as previously discussedand the Applicant’s own admission of wrongdoing in his personal statement.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entries, and...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1101666

    Original file (ND1101666.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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2012_Marine | MD1200403

    Original file (MD1200403.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Given the facts of the case, the Special Court-Martial awarded the Applicant a Bad Conduct Discharge. Clemency 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801079

    Original file (MD0801079.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Types of Documents Submitted/reviewedRelated to Military Service: DD 214: Service and/or 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 Member of Congress: Other Documentation (Describe) DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE...

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0901531

    Original file (MD0901531.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board determined the Applicant met the requirements for separation by reason of misconduct – pattern of misconduct and the awarded characterization of discharge was 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801282

    Original file (ND0801282.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ‘Uncharacterized’ separation is considered the equivalent of an ‘Honorable’ or ‘General (Under Honorable Conditions)’ discharge.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...