Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1100374
Original file (MD1100374.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-, USMC
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20101130
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)       20030314 - 20030526     Active:  

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20030527     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Months
Date of Discharge: 20070316      H ighest Rank:
Length of Service : Y ea r ( s ) M on th ( s ) 20 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 58
MOS: 5524
Proficiency/Conduct M arks (# of occasions): ( ) / ( )    Fitness R eports:

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      Rifle Pistol LoA (2)

Periods of CONF : 20060925-20061113, 50 days (pr e -trial)

NJP:

- 20051005 :      Article (Failure to go to appointed place of duty)
         Awarded: Suspended:

- 20060817 :      Article (UA, 2 specifications )
         Specification 1: From uniform inspection
         Specification 2: From work 0800-0900
          Article (Wrongfully disobeyed BaseO P5500.15A by drinking underage)
         Awarded: Suspended:

SCM :     CC:

SPCM:

- 20061114 :       Art icle (UA, 2 specifications )
         Specification 1: Fail to go to appointed place of duty on 20060825
         Specification 2: Fail to go to appointed place of duty on 20060830
         Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation, 4 specifications )
         Specifications 1-3: Wrongfully missing prescribed check - in times
         Specification 4: Wrongfully consuming alcohol while on restriction
          Sentence : 45 DAYS





Retention Warning Counseling :

- 20051012 :       For your disrespectful personal conduct toward a Commissioned Officer who was conducting a command directed investigation by your unwarranted interruption. Subsequently , you were both verbally disrespectful and disobedient to a SNCO who was directing you to leave the area. Further, you were verbally disrespectful to the band Staff NCOIC. Such conduct undermines leadership efforts and is unacceptable from any Marine, particularly a Noncommissioned Officer.

- 20051012 :       For unauthorized absence. Specifically on 20050930 from 0630 to 1330 you were deliberately absent from your appointed place of duty.

- 20060817 :       For unauthorized absence and disobeyed a lawful order.

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

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

          “ 2003 05 27 ”

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 contends her misconduct was not severe enough to warrant separation , other Marines with worse records were not separated and received Honorable characteri zations, and she was separated two months before her EAS and not after the incidents.

Decision

Date : 2012 0214             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 discharg e if such change is warranted. In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of g overnment al affairs 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 warnings , for o f the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article (Unauthorized absence, ) and Article ( , ) , and special court-martial for violations of the UCMJ: Article ( , ) and Article (Failure to obey order or regulations, ) . Based on the , command administratively processed for separation. When notified of administrative separation processing, the Applicant rights to consult with a qualified counsel and request an administrative board. The Applicant waived her right to submit a written statement. The administrative board voted 3-0 to separate with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) characterization of service.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends her misconduct was not severe enough to warrant separation, other Marines with worse records were not separated and received Honorable characterizations, and she was separated two months before her EAS and not after the incidents. The NDRB reviews the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge individually, on a case-by-case basis. If such a review reveals an impropriety or inequity, relief is in order. Regulations permit relief on equitable grounds if the Applicant’s discharge is inconsistent with standards of discipline of the Naval Service. Based upon available records, nothing indicates that the Applicant’s discharge was in any way inconsistent with the standards of discipline in the United States Navy. A preponderance of the evidence reviewed supports the conclusion that the Applicant committed numerous serious offense s (violations of Article 92) , that separation from the Naval Service was appropriate, and that a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge was warranted. In fact, misconduct of her nature would typically result in an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions characterization of service. Additionally, the time to process her separation paperwork after her last offense was within the expected timeframe to discharge a servicemember for misconduct. 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 .

 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 | 2009_Marine | MD0901436

    Original file (MD0901436.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall MISCONDUCT.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. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal...

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0900165

    Original file (MD0900165.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The NDRB determined the Applicant completed his obligated period of service and is therefore entitled to an upgrade of his discharge to “Honorable” and a change to the narrative reason for separation to “Secretarial Authority. ” However, because of the noted repeated minor misconduct the NDRB does not recommend or support a change to the Applicant’s reentry code.After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Record, Discharge Process and...

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0901893

    Original file (MD0901893.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 | 2009_Marine | MD0901965

    Original file (MD0901965.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board determined the characterization of service received, “Bad Conduct Discharge”, was an appropriate characterization considering the length of service and the UCMJ violations involved, and based on the lack of post service documentation provided, clemency would be inappropriateSummary:After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, service record entries, discharge process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found...

  • USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1100430

    Original file (MD1100430.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant gained weight and body fat while assigned to the BCP program, which shows lack of reasonable effort and unsatisfactory performance for which a General (Under Honorable Conditions) characterization is warranted. The date in Block 18 likely refers to the Applicant’s last instance of misconduct and resets the 3-year time counter for the medal.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entries, and discharge...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1000857

    Original file (ND1000857.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. 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2012_Marine | MD1200301

    Original file (MD1200301.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT Applicant’s Issues 1. The Applicant’s service record did not contain Pro/Con marks, which determine characterization of service when a Marine reaches the end of his required active service. ” 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 | 2008_Marine | MD0800107

    Original file (MD0800107.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall MISCONDUCT.Discussion : either which the Board cannot form the basis of relief for the Applicant, or the Board does not have the authority to grant the relief for which the Applicant petitioned. ” Additional Reviews : Subsequent to a document review, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application is received at the NDRB within 15 years from the date of discharge. Additionally, the Board has no authority to...

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0901429

    Original file (MD0901429.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. If a former member has been discharged for more than 15 years, has already been granted a personal appearance hearing or has otherwise exhausted...

  • USMC | DRB | 2012_Marine | MD1201292

    Original file (MD1201292.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Clemency 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...