Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1100086
Original file (MD1100086.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-, USMC
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20101013
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)       19990125 - 19990215     Active:  

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 19990216     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Months
Date of Discharge: 20001117      H ighest Rank:
Length of Service : Y ea r ( s ) M on th ( s ) 16 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 34
MOS: 3531
Proficiency/Conduct M arks (# of occasions): ( ) / ( )    Fitness R eports:
Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      Rifle

Periods of UA /CONF : UA 0700, 20000513 - 1100, 20000928 , ( 139 days , apprehended )                  CONF:

NJP:     SCM:     SPCM:    CC:      Retention Warning Counseling :

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214
The NDRB did note administrative error(s) on the original DD Form 214:

          “ (139) 000513-000928 ”
        
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 6419, SEPARATION IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT-MARTIAL , of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16E), effective 18 August 1995 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 IV, Para 403m(7)(b), Presumption Concerning Court-Martial Specifications .

C . 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 contends his discharge was improper , because the Marine Corps failed to provide him legal assistance.

Decision

Date: 20 1 2 0 1 26            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. 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 reflect ed a Page 11 counseling on 28 Mar 2000. The record also revealed the Applicant was absent from his place of appointed duty (UA) from 13 May 2000 - 28 Sep 2000 (139 days ) , which was terminated by his apprehension by civil authorities . After return to military control on 28 Sep 2000 , the Applicant was charged with violation of Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) Article 85 (Desertion, with intent to remain absent, 13 May-28 Sep 2000), Article 86 (Absence without leave, 13 May-28 Sep 2000, 139 days) , and Article 87 (Missing movement, 1st Battalion 10th Marines movement on 13 May 2000) , and subsequently placed in pre-trial confinement. Based on the offense s committed by the Applicant, his command referred him for trial by special court-martial. After consulting with qualified counsel, the Applicant submitted a request for administrative separation in lieu of trial by court-martial to the Court-Martial Convening Authority. In his request, the Applicant agreed to plead guilty to the offenses for which he was charged, in return for administrative separation from the Marine Corps with either an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions or General (Under Honorable Conditio ns) discharge. After consider in g the facts and circumstances surrounding the Applicant’s case, the Co n vening Authority accepted the Applicant’s request and directed that he be administratively separated from the Marine Corps with an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge. The Applicant was separated on 17 Nov 2000 as directed.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends his discharge was improper , because the Marine Corps failed to provide him legal assistance. The Board conducted a detailed review of the records and found no evidence of command legal or administrative impropriety. The Board found a two- page document within the record titled “Advice Concerning Separation in Lieu of Trial (SILT) , ” which outlined all the specific details involving a request for SILT. At the bottom of the document, the Applicant and his Detailed Defense Counsel (a Marine Captain) each signed their names acknowledging the following statement s : “ My request for a separation in lieu of trial discharge is freely and voluntarily made without coercion or pressure in any form from any person” and “I advised the accused of the information explained above, and I am fully satisfied that the accused understands the information and consequences of requesting a separation in lieu of trial discharge . ” Moreover, on 27 Oct 2000 , the 2d Marine Division Staff Judge Advocate Review of the Applicant’s SILT package was completed and then signed by the S taff Judge Advocate ( a Marine LtCol) as meeting all the legal requirements mandated by the applicable orders and directives. After considering the available evidence, the Board determined the Applicant’s issue was without merit and 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

  • USMC | DRB | 2012_Marine | MD1200711

    Original file (MD1200711.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to: Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive:USMCR (DEP)20070816 - 20071014Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Current Enlistment: 20071015Age at Enlistment: Period of Enlistment: Years MonthsDate of Discharge:20100820Highest Rank:Length of Service: Year(s)Month(s)06 Day(s)Education Level: AFQT:74MOS: 1731Proficiency/Conduct Marks (# of occasions):Fitness Reports: Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):Rifle...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1301284

    Original file (ND1301284.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Representation: 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 governmental affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include...

  • USMC | DRB | 2012_Marine | MD1201398

    Original file (MD1201398.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 6419,...

  • USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1101242

    Original file (MD1101242.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Decisional issues:The Applicant contends that the characterization of his service at discharge was inequitable in relation to the charges and evidence used against him in the discharge process; at the time of his request for separation in lieu of trial by court martial, the Applicant requested a General (Under Honorable Conditions) characterization. (2) At the time of his request for separation in lieu of trial by court-martial, the Applicant requested a General (Under Honorable Conditions)...

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0901184

    Original file (MD0901184.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT Applicant’s Issues 1. The Board voted two for upgrade to HONORBLE and three for upgrade to GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS).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 | 2009_Marine | MD0901688

    Original file (MD0901688.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ” 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. 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. Additionally, the NDRB has no authority to upgrade a...

  • USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1100291

    Original file (MD1100291.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 | 2013_Marine | MD1301727

    Original file (MD1301727.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 | 2015_Marine | MD1401671

    Original file (MD1401671.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    When the Applicant submitted her request for separation in lieu of trial (SILT), she submitted a letter along with the request which became part of the official record. 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 remain UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS and the narrative reason for separation shall remain IN LIEU...

  • USMC | DRB | 2013_Marine | MD1300815

    Original file (MD1300815.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The record also shows the Applicant submitted a SILT request where he would have likely had to plead guilty to being in a deserter status from 07 September 1969 until 02 October 2008. 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...