Upgrade.Vet

USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1002218

Original file (MD1002218.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-, USMC

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20100909

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)       20051209 - 20060108     Active:

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20060109     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Months
Date of Discharge: 20091009      H ighest Rank:
Length of Service : Y ea rs M on ths 01 D a y
Education Level:        AFQT: 48
MOS: 2311
Proficiency/Conduct M arks (# of occasions): /          Fitness R eports:

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      Rifle EX GCM GWOTSM NDSM

Periods of UA / CONF :

Period of Time Lost: 20081020 - 20081106, 18 days

NJP: NONE        SCM: NONE

SPCM:

- 20090417 :       Art icle 86 (Absence without leave, UA, 0645 - 0918 on 20081219)
         Sentence : No punishment

CC: 1

- 20080811 :       Offense: Injury to personal property, resisting public officer, and assault with a deadly weapon
         Sentence : Fine of $561.50, Probation 36 Months

Retention Warning Counseling : 4

- 20080817:      For civilian conviction of injury to personal property, resisting public officer , and assault with a daily weapon

- 20090325:      For willfully disobeying a commissioned officer by not participating in a battalion working party

- 20090508 :       For having a female, not your wife, living with you in current home. For further implicating yourself by informing the command that you were estranged from your wife and the woman living with you was your girlfriend and pregnant by you.

- 20090508 :       For pattern of misconduct

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

The NDRB note d an administrative error on the original DD Form 214:

         “ MARCORSEPMAN 6210.3 [PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT] ”

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 6210, MISCONDUCT , 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 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 to become eligible for the GI Bill and to improve his employment opportunities.
2.       The Applicant contends his honorable service outweighs his misconduct.

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 four 6105 counseling warnings , one special court-martial for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Art icle 86 (Absence without leave, 0645 - 0918 on 20081219) , and one civilian conviction for i njury to personal property, resisting public officer, and assault with a deadly weapon. Based on the offenses committed by the Applicant, his command administratively processed him for separation by reason of a pattern of misconduct and commission of a serious offense . When notified of a dministrative separation processing , the Applicant exercised his rights to consult with a qualified counsel and r equest an administrative board , but waived his right to submit a written statement. The administrative board determined the evidence supported the misconduct and recommended separation with a General (Under Honorable Conditions ) characterization of service. The Applicant was subsequently discharged from the Marine Corps with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) for a Pattern of Misconduct.

: (Nondecisional) The Applicant seeks to become eligible for the GI Bill and to improve his employment opportunities. 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 re - characterization 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. Also, t he 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 honorable service outweighs his misconduct. C ertain serious offenses, even though isolated, warrant separation from the in order to maintain proper order and discipline. Civil conviction s for resisting a public officer, assault with a deadly weapon, and injury to personal property are offense s that warrant processing for administrative separation regardless of grade or time in service. Additionally, the Applicant had a conviction at special court-martial for violation of Article 86. Offenses and legal proceedings of this nature typically result in an unfavorable characterization of discharge or, at a maximum, a punitive discharge and possible confinement if adjudicated and awarded as part of a sentence by a special or general court-martial. However, his command did not pursue a punitive di scharge but opted instead for the more lenient administrative discharge. The Applicant was shown even more leniency when the administrative board recommended a General (Under Honorable Conditions) characterization of service. Despite letters of recommendation from Marines he served with, t he NDRB determined an upgrade would be inappropriate. Relief denied.

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

NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1001250

Original file (ND1001250.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant contends his discharge was inequitable as he was not kicked out of the Navy and he had no NJPs on his record.As previously explained, the Applicant’s command opted not to separate him for the 2 Feb 2009 NJP (UCMJ Article 92 offense, commission of a serious offense) or the 8 May 2009 civilian conviction (Assault with a deadly weapon), which are separable offenses per the Naval Military Personnel Manual (MILPERSMAN). ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been...
NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1201336

Original file (ND1201336.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Reliefgranted.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 the unique circumstances surround this case following his discharge, the awarded characterization shall change to GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)and the narrative reason for separation shall change to SECRETARIAL AUTHORITY.The...
USMC | DRB | 2014_Marine | MD1401008

Original file (MD1401008.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/To Congress member: Pertinent Regulation/Law A.Paragraph 6210,...
USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1100159

Original file (MD1100159.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. The Applicant contends his misconduct was due toPTSD and TBI resulting from his combat deployment to Iraq.The Board conducted an exhaustive review of the Applicant’s service and medical records to determine whether the Applicant’s documented PTSD contributed to or was a significant factor in his post-combat deployment misconduct. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review...
USMC | DRB | 2012_Marine | MD1201005

Original file (MD1201005.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

As such, matters of propriety are not within the authority of the NDRB in relation to punishment as adjudged in a punitive trial by court-martial. The NDRB, however, did conduct 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. Clemency denied.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entries, and discharge...
USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1100747

Original file (MD1100747.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...
NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1200560

Original file (ND1200560.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to:Narrative Reason change to: Summary of ServicePrior Service: Inactive:USNR (DEP)19971203 - 19980203Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Current Enlistment: 20020621Age at Enlistment:Period of Enlistment: YearsExtensionDate of Discharge:20050506Highest Rank/Rate:CS2Length of Service:Years Months16 DaysEducation Level:AFQT: 38EvaluationMarks:Performance:3.3(8)Behavior:2.9(8)OTA: 3.23Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):KCMPeriods of...
USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0902123

Original file (MD0902123.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. The Applicant served for 2 years, 3 months, 17 days and had four NJPs during that time.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, medical and record entries, and discharge process, the Board found Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall and the narrative reason for separation shall remain.The...
NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0902444

Original file (ND0902444.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Based on the Applicant’s record of service, the NDRB determined the Applicant’s misconduct was not an isolated incident anddiscerned no inequity in the characterization of the Applicant’s service.Issue 3: (Decisional) () . ” 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...
NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1201525

Original file (ND1201525.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

With two NJPs and a civilian arrest in his current enlistment, the Applicant met the requirements for administrative separation for Misconduct (Serious Offense) and Misconduct (Pattern of Misconduct).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...

Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1002218

Similar Decisions