Upgrade.Vet

USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1100113

Original file (MD1100113.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-, USMC

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20101014

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)       20040112 - 20040801     Active:

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20040802     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Months
Date of Discharge: 20060517      H ighest Rank:
Length of Service : Y ea r ( s ) M on th ( s ) 16 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 63
MOS: 7011
Proficiency/Conduct M arks (# of occasions): ( ) / ( )    Fitness R eports:

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      Rifle CoC

Periods of CONF : 20060324-20060328, 5 days

NJP:

- 20050203:      Article (Failure to go to appointed place of duty , 2 specifications )
         Specification 1: M orning muster on 0500, 20050105
         Specification 2: Morning muster on 0700, 20050123
         Awarded: Suspended:

- 20050708:      Article (Absent from appointed place of duty)
         Awarded: Suspended:

- 20051018 :      Article ( UA, 2 specifications )
         Specification 1: Absent from appointed place of duty on 20050905
         Specification 2: Absent from appointed place of duty on 20050913
         Art icle (Disobey lawful order , 2 specifications )
         Specification 1: Consuming alcohol under the age of 21
         Specification 2: Consuming alcohol while in a duty status
         Awarded : Susp ended:

SCM:

- 20060303 :       Art icle ( Failure to go to appointed place of duty , 15 specifications )
         Article 92 (Failure to obey lawful order or regulation)
         Sentence : HARD LABOR WITHOUT CONFINEMENT FOR 45 DAYS
         CA Action: 20060329 Hard labor without confinement was changed to restriction for 59 days.

SPCM:    CC:

Retention Warning Counseling :

- 20050203 :       For four specifications of unauthorized absence

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

The NDRB did note administrative error(s) on the original DD Form 214:

         “ UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS ”

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 believes his discharge was improper , because it was based on his off-duty activities , which were affected by his alcoholism , rather than his performance and conduct while on duty. He adds that his drinking caused him t o violate Article 86 of the UCMJ on several occasions.
2 .       The Applicant contends his record of service, as evidenced by his high physical fitness test ( PFT ) scores, volunteer work , and awards, warrants consideration for an upgrade to Honorable.
3 .       The Applicant believes his post-service conduct, as evidenced by his claims of slowed consumption of alcohol and outstanding work ethic, warrants consideration for an upgrade to Honorable.

Decision

Date: 20 1 2 0 119          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’s record of service included 6105 counseling warning and three non-judicial punishments for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 86 ( Failure to go to appointed place of duty , 5 specifications) and Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation, 2 specifications). It also included one summary court-martial for violation s of the UCMJ: Article 86 ( Failure to go to appointed place of duty , 15 specifications) and Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation, 1 specification). Based on the offenses committed by the Applicant, command administratively processed for separation. When notified of a dministrative separation processing , the Applicant elected his ri ght to consult with a qualified counsel , but waived his rights to submit a written statement and request a n administrative board .

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant believes his discharge was improper , because it was based on his off-duty activities , which were affected by his alcoholism , rather than his performance and conduct while on duty. R egardless of when and where active duty Marines ’ misconduct occurs , on or off duty or on or off a government facility , they are always subject to the UCMJ and are always representatives of the U.S. Marine Corps . According to the Applicant, his off-duty drinking caused him to violate Article 86 of the UCMJ on several occasion s . The A pplicant was not discharged for drinking while off duty ; rather , he was discharged for numerous violations of the UCMJ , which included 20 specifications of being UA . The summary court-martial, multiple non-judicial punishments , and the 6105 counseling warning constituted a clear pattern of misconduct and warranted administrative processing for separation. The Board concluded the Applicant’s alcoholism did not mitigate his misconduct and discerned no impropriety or inequity in the discharge process. Relief denied.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends his record of service, as evidenced by his high PFT scores, volunteer work , and awards, warrants consideration for an upgrade to Honorable. Despite a service member’s prior record of service, offenses constituting a pattern of misconduct warrant separation from the Marine Corps to maintain proper order and discipline. The Applicant’s pattern of misconduct consisted of three non-judicial punishments , one summary court-martial, and one retention warning. Included in the Applicant’s pattern of misconduct are violations of Article 92 for failing to obey an order or regulation. Failing to obey an order or regulation can 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 discharge but opted instead for the more lenient administrative discharge. The NDRB found the characterization of the Applicant ’ s discharge was very equitable. Relief denied.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant believes his post-service conduct, as evidenced by his claims of slowed consumption of alcohol and outstanding work ethic, warrants consideration for an upgrade to Honorable . The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the re-characterization of a discharge. However, there is no law, or regulation, that provides that an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Normally, to permit relief, a procedural impropriety or inequity must have been found to exist during the period of enlistment in question. The Applicant did not submit any post-service documentation along with the DD Form 293 for the Board to evaluate his post-service character and conduct. His statement alone was not sufficient. His efforts needed to have been more encompassing and supported by documentation. He could have submitted documentation as specified in the Post-Service Conduct paragraph in the Addendum , however, c ompletion 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. 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. 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 | MD1201266

Original file (MD1201266.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant also acknowledged his complete understanding of the Marine Corps Policy Concerning Illegal Use of Drugs on 5 June 2002.Despite an Article 112a violation, which requires mandatory administrative processing, the Applicant’s command allowed him to finish his enlistment, and he was discharged at his End of Active Obligated Service with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) characterization of service.In accordance with Paragraph 1004 of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement...
USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0902169

Original file (MD0902169.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. He was twice arrested for underage possession of alcohol (received an enlistment waiver) and continued heavy regular use of alcohol following enlistment. ” 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...
USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0902231

Original file (MD0902231.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. Additionally, the NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities. Additionally, the NDRB does not have the authority to change a narrative reason for separation to one indicating a medical disability or...
USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0901523

Original file (MD0901523.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall COURT-MARTIAL.Discussion 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 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...
NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1001126

Original file (ND1001126.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of service, reflects the Applicant’s willful failure to meet the requirements of conduct expected of all Sailors, especially one of his length of service, and falls short of what is required for an upgrade.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...
USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1101541

Original file (MD1101541.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Decisional issues: The Applicant contends that his discharge characterization of service was inequitable and does not reflect his service and combat service to his nation. The command did not pursue a punitive discharge but opted instead for the more lenient non-judicial punishments and administrative discharge.Additionally, the two civilian arrests and convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol were serious offenses that, by themselves, warranted separation for Misconduct due...
USMC | DRB | 2012_Marine | MD1200934

Original file (MD1200934.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to: Narrative Reason change to: Summary of ServicePrior Service: Inactive:USMCR (DEP)20070810 - 20070819Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Current Enlistment: 20070820Age at Enlistment: Period of Enlistment: Years MonthsDate of Discharge:20110614Highest Rank:Length of Service: Year(s)Month(s)22 Day(s)Education Level: AFQT:73MOS: 4341Proficiency/Conduct Marks (# of occasions):/Fitness Reports: Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):Rifle...
USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0601024

Original file (MD0601024.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-PFC, USMCMD06-01024Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request: Application Received: 20060728Narrative Reason for Separation: MISCONDUCT Character of Service:Discharge Authority: MARCORSEPMAN 6210.3Last Duty Assignment/Command at Discharge: HEADQUARTERS AND HEADQUARTERS SQUADRON, MCAS CHERRY POINTApplicant’s Request:Narrative Reason change to: NONE REQUESTEDCharacterization change to:Review Requested:Representation: Decision: Date of Decision: 20070628 Location of Board: Washington...
USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0902583

Original file (MD0902583.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...
USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1001424

Original file (MD1001424.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 . ” 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...

Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1100113

Similar Decisions