Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1002227
Original file (MD1002227.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-, USMC
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20100910
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)       20050208 - 20050918     Active:  

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20050919     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Months
Date of Discharge: 20090918      H ighest Rank:
Length of Service : Y ea rs M on ths 00 D a ys
Education Level: 12      AFQT: 41
MOS: 0621
Proficiency/Conduct M arks (# of occasions): ( ) / ( )    Fitness R eports:
Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      Rifle EX NDSM GWOTSM

Periods of UA / CONF :

NJP:
- 20061201:      Article 91 (Insubordinate conduct toward a noncommissioned officer, disrespectful in language to Sgt C.)
         Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation, disregarded lawful order to sleep in duty room, inform the DNCO of his whereabouts, and return by 2100 on 20061112)
          Article 107 (False official statement, lied about calling the DNCO on cell phone)
          Awarded: RIR FOP RESTR EPD Suspended: RIR FOP RESTR EPD (Vacated on 20070413)

- 20070419:      Article 91 (Insubordinate conduct toward a noncommissioned officer, disrespectful in language to Sgt H.)
         Awarded: FOP RESTR EPD Suspended: NONE

 - 20070823 :      Article 91 (Insubordinate conduct toward a noncommissioned officer, disrespectful in language toward Cpl P.)
         Awarded: FOP RESTR EPD 1 month Suspended: FOP RESTR EPD 7 days

SCM:     SPCM:    CC:

Retention Warning Counseling :
- 20061006 :       For failure to give a period of instruction on the OE-254/GRC antennae set

- 20061006 :       For being disrespectful to Sgt K while being counseled

- 20070111 :       For failure to obtain a passing score on annual rifle qualification

- 20070402:      For failure to obtain a passing score on annual rifle qualification
- 20070823:      For disrespectful language toward an NCO

- 20080318:      For being UA from work station PT on 20080318
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. Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16F), effective 1 September 2001 until Present, Paragraph 1005, DISCHARGE FOR EXPIRATION OF ENLISTMENT OR FULFILLMENT OF SERVICE OBLIGATION .
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 contends poor leadership and the amount of hazing from the noncommissioned officers of his unit contributed to his misconduct.
2.       The Applicant contends his P roficiency and C onduct (Pro/Con) marks were unjustifiably low and unfair.

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 six 6105 counseling warnings and three nonjudicial punishments (NJPs) for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 91 (Insubordinate conduct toward a noncommissioned officer, 3 specifications ) , Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation, disregarded lawful order to sleep in duty room, inform the DNCO of his whereabouts, and return by 2100 on 20061112) , and Article 107 (False official statement, lied about calling the DNCO on cell phone) . Based on the Applicant’s overall P roficiency and C onduct (Pro/Con) markings of 4.0 and 3.7 , respectively , throughout his enlistment, he was discharged with a G eneral ( U nder H onorable C onditions) characterization of service.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends poor leadership and the amount of hazing from the noncommissioned officers of his unit contributed to his misconduct. The Applicant submitted statements from other Marines corroborating the Applicant’s claims of poor leadership and hazing at his command. However, the Applicant’s misconduct of record is substantial, serious, and repe titive in nature. The Applicant’s substandard Pro/Con marks are clearly a result of this misconduct and do not appear to be directly related to any sort of hazing or command climate problem. The Applicant was responsible for this behavior, and it reflected in his Pro/Con marks , which were below the threshold to receive an Honorable characterization of service. The NDRB determined an u pgrade would be inappropriate.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends his Pro/Con marks were unjustifiably low and unfair. The Applicant’s Pro/Con marks are a matter of record that clearly reflect multiple NJPs and numerous counseling warnings. The NDRB found no evidence the Applicant’s Pro/Con marks were unfair or arbitrary . It is clear the Applicant’s C onduct marks fell short of the 4.0 required to receive an Honorable characterization of service. An u pgrade would be inappropriate.

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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | MD1002316

    Original file (MD1002316.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Relief 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 . ” 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 | 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1100630

    Original file (MD1100630.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Due to the limited documentation provided by the Applicant to substantiate his post-service conduct, the NDRB determined an upgrade would be inappropriate. 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 .The Applicant remains eligible for a personal hearing for...

  • USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1100300

    Original file (MD1100300.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Relief 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 .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 | MD1001591

    Original file (MD1001591.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant completed his required active service with the Marine Corps and was discharged with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) characterization based on his average Proficiency and Conduct (Pro/Con) marks. This certificate has no relation or bearing on his active service, for which he properly and equitably received a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record...

  • 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 | 2010_Marine | MD1001728

    Original file (MD1001728.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 8404 of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual (MARCORSEPMAN) – Discharge for disability existing prior to service. Relief denied.Summary: After a thorough review of the available...