Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1002356
Original file (MD1002356.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-, USMC
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20100824
Characterization of Service Received:
Narrative Reason for Discharge:
Authority for Discharge: MARCORSEPMAN

Applicant’s Request:      Characterization change to:
         Narrative Reason change to: FROM RE-4 TO RE-3

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive:         USMCR (DEP)       19960815 - 19970804     Active:  

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 19970805     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Months
Date of Discharge: 20000810      H ighest Rank:
Length of Service : Y ea r ( s ) M on th ( s ) 6 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 36
MOS: 6672
Proficiency/Conduct M arks (# of occasions): ( ) / ( )    Fitness R eports:

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      Rifle

Periods of UA / CONF :

NJP:

- 19990209 :      Article (Failure to obey order or regulation by wearing an earring in his ear , 19981113 )
         Awarded: (to E-2) Suspended: (suspend 2 months)

- 20000209 :      Article (Failure to obey order or regulation, 2 specifications )
         Specification 1: Failure to obey or regulation; Group Order 1700.2A underage drinking on 20000122
         Specification 2: Failure to obey or regulation; Group Order 1700.2A underage drinking on 20000202
         Article 112 (Drunk on duty , 2 specifications )
         Specification 1: SNM was found drunk while in a duty status on 20000122 , BAC .13
         Specification 2: SNM was found drunk while in a duty status on 20000202
         Article (General Article, wrongfully cohabitate d with a female not his wife for the first 8 months)
         Awarded: (to E-2) Suspended:

- 20000619 :      Article (Disrespect toward a SNCO)
         Article (Failed to inform duty personnel that he would be leaving the area)
         Article (General Article, wrongful cohabitation )
         Awarded: (to E-1) FOP Suspended: (suspend 4 months)

SCM:              SPCM:             CC:

CC Arrest :

- 19991203 :      Offen se: D riving while intoxicated (D WI ) on 19991120 in Havelock , NC .



Retention Warning Counseling :

- 19990930 :       For you r fail ure to handle financial debts in a timely and prudent manner . Your actions of late and inadequate dependent support payments 990801, 990815, and 990901 resulted in frequent calls from your spouse. Your inability to show proof of timely and adequate payments of family financial support indicates lack of sound financial management and failure to comply with chapter 8, LEGADMINMAN MCO P5800.16. Additionally, notification from MCCS Check Redemption Center of returned check number 535 for insufficient funds of $119 plus $25 service charge total $144.00. This poor performance in taking care of personal affairs has impacted the morale, efficiency, and leadership of your division. Timeless man-hours have been exhausted by your chain of command providing guidance and concentration to assist you in resolving these crucial family matters. These matters have been continuous and have been addressed by this department since Jul 99.

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 P1900.16E), 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 502, Propriety and Para 503, Equity .



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

Applicant’s Issues

 1.       Applicant seeks a discharge upgrade to reenlist in the U.S. Arm y .
2.       Applicant contends his discharge was improper and based on false accusations phoned in from his ex-wife.

Decision

Date: 20 1 2 01 04            Location: Washington D.C .         R epresentation :

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 identif ied one decisional issue 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 6105 counseling warning for failure to handle debts and dependent child support payments in a timely and prudent manner (30 Sep 1999) and for o f the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 91 ( Insubordinate conduct toward noncommissioned officer, willfully disobeyed a GySgt ), Article 92 ( Failure to obey an order or regulation, 4 specifications: wore an earring in his ear, o/o 13 Nov 1998; underage drinking, 22 Jan and 2 Feb 2000; failure to inform duty personnel he was departing the area) , Article 112 ( Drunk on duty, 2 specifications: 22 Jan 2000 with BAC .13, and 2 Feb 2000 ) , and Article 134 ( General Article, 2 specifications: wrongful cohabitation with a female not his wife ). The record also revealed a civil arrest on 20 Nov 1999 for driving while intoxicated in Havelock , NC. Based on the repeated offenses committed by the Applicant, command administratively processed for separation. When notified of a dministrative separation processing using the procedure on 24 Jul 2000 , the Applicant waived rights to consult with a qualified counsel, submit a written statement, and request an administrative separation board . The Applicant was separated from the Marine Corps on 10 Aug 2000 with an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge due to Pattern of Misconduct.

: (Nondecisional) The Applicant seeks a discharge upgrade to reenlist in the U.S. Army . 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 his discharge was improper and based on false accusations phoned in from his ex-wife. In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the Applicant. The NDRB conducted a detailed review of the records and found no evidence to support the Applicant’s contention that false accusations led to his discharge. The record clearly reflects the Applicant’s willful, repeated and continuous misconduct. Between November 1998 and June 2000, the Applicant received three NJPs, one civil arrest, and one 6105 retention warning , which included underage drinking, drunk on duty, driving while intoxicated, failure to obey orders and regulations, wrongful cohabitation with a female not his wife, and failure to pay debts and c hild support payments on time.

Per the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, 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 Na val 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 outweigh the positive aspects of the member’s service record. A discharge U nder O ther T han H onorable C onditions is warranted when a member engages in conduct involving one or more acts or omissions that constitute a significant departure from the conduct expected of members of the N aval S ervice. After exhaustive review and careful consideration of all the available evidence, the Board found that the Applicant’s administrative separation was proper and equitable, and in accordance with the applicable orders and directives in effect at the time of his separation. Accordingly, the Board determined this issue did not provide a basis for which relief could be granted. 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 . 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

  • NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1101368

    Original file (ND1101368.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant was not entitled to an administrative separation board.The Applicant was separated from the Navy on 2 December 2009 with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge due to Pattern of Misconduct. ” 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2014_Navy | ND1400270

    Original file (ND1400270.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant contends he served honorably for two years with only one indiscretion for underage drinking and drunk on duty.2. The Applicant was provided the opportunity to present his case before an administrative board, but he waived that right, thus accepting the discharge recommended in the letter of notification.Further, the Separation Authority determined the Applicant’s...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1000215

    Original file (ND1000215.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    He received an enlistment waiver for pre-service use of marijuana and further acknowledged his complete understanding of the Navy Substance Abuse Policy – in writing – on 04 July 2000.The Applicant’s record of service included two NAVPERS 1070/613 (Page 13) retention-counseling warnings and one non-judicial punishment for of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) as follows: Article 92 (Failure to obey an order or regulation, 2 specifications) • Article 134 (Uttering worthless checks, 9...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1000844

    Original file (ND1000844.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Without any post-service documentary evidence to review, the Board determined this issue to be without merit and did not provide a basis for which relief could be granted. ” 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801259

    Original file (ND0801259.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant contends his discharge should be upgraded to “Honorable ” based on his overall service which was faithful and honorable.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. After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Record Entries, Discharge Process and evidence...

  • USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1001527

    Original file (MD1001527.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 . ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801180

    Original file (ND0801180.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Based on the severity and frequency of offenses committed by the Applicant and the lack of mitigating factors, the Board determined the “Under Other Than Honorable” discharge was the most appropriate characterization of service and upgrade would be inappropriate.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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2014_Marine | MD1400846

    Original file (MD1400846.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: Pertinent Regulation/Law A. Paragraph 6210, MISCONDUCT ,...

  • USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1000729

    Original file (MD1000729.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 | 2009_Marine | MD0901598

    Original file (MD0901598.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.