Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1101276
Original file (MD1101276.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-, USMC
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20110427
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)       20051019 - 20060827     Active:  

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20060828     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Months
Date of Discharge: 20070523      H ighest Rank:
Length of Service : Y ea r ( s ) M on th ( s ) 26 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 52
MOS: 6011
Proficiency/Conduct M arks (# of occasions): ( ) / 1.5 ( )         Fitness R eports:

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      Rifle

NJP:
- 20070129 :       Article ( 1301, 20061227-1000, 2007011 7 ( 21 days ) , )
         Awarded : Susp ended:

SCM:
- 20070517 :       Art icle ( 20070222-2007040 4 ( 41 days ) , )
         Sentence : (pre-trial 20070408-2007051 6 , 39 days)

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:

         “ (21) 20061227-20070116, (41) 20070222-20070403, (39) 20070408-20070516 ”

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 :        


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

Applicant’s Issues

 1.        The Applicant seeks a n upgrade in order to reenlist into the Armed Forces.
2.       The Applicant contends his misconduct was a direct result of misrepresentation by his recruiter.
3.       The Applicant contends that his punishment was too seve re for the offenses he committed.
4.       The Applicant contends his discharge was inequitable , because other Applicants who committed more serious incident s received upgrades.
5 .       The Applicant believes his post-service conduct is worthy of consideration.
6 .       The Applicant faul ts youth and immaturity for his misconduct.

Decision

Date : 201 2 0607             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 Board did complete a thorough review of the circumstances that led to discharge and the discharge process to ensure the pertinent standards of equity and propriety were met. The Applicant’s record of service included for o f the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article ( , , 1301, 20061227 - 1000, 2007011 7 , 21 days ) and for of the UCMJ: Article ( , , 20070222 - 20070404, 41 days , apprehended ). Based on the , command administratively processed for separation . When notified of administrative separation processing, the Applicant right to c onsult with a qualified counsel but waived his rights to submit a written statement and request an admi nistrative board. By regulation, members notified of intended recommendation for discharge within the first 180 days of enlistment are eligible for an U ncharacterized or E ntry- L evel S eparation characterization of service unless there were unusual circumstances regarding a servicemember’s performance or conduct that merit another characterization. The Applicant enlisted on 28 August 2006 and was notified of his discharge on 16 May 2007 , which is outside the 180-day window for an U ncharacterized or E ntry- L evel S eparation characterization of service. An U nder Other T han H onorable C onditions discharge wa s warranted when t he Applicant pled guilty and was found guilty at a Summary Court - Martial on 17 May 2007 for violating Article 86 of the UCMJ for an unauthorized absence of 41 days.

: (Nondecisional) The Applicant seeks an upgrade in order to reenlist into the Armed Forces. 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.

: (D ecisional) ( ) . The Applicant states that his recruiter led him to believe that he was enlisting in the Marine Corps under a reserve status and not for active duty service. The government enjoys a presumption of regularity in the conduct of its affairs. The Applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support his issue. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the Applicant produced any evidence, to support the contention that the recruiter misled him through the recruitment process. The Applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity in this case. However, even if the Applicant could show misrepresentations in the recruitment process, such misrepresentations would neither amount to a justification nor to a defense for the Applicant’s own misconduct. Relief denied.


: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends that since he served for only eight months , an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge with an RE-4 reentry code was too seve re for the offenses he committed. Despite a service member’s prior record of service, certain serious offenses warrant separation from the Marine Corps to maintain proper order and discipline. Violation of Article 86 in excess of 30 days is such an offense. Any member of the A rmed F orces who, without authority, absents himself or remains absent from his unit, organization, or place of duty at which he is required to be at the time prescribed for greater than 30 days 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 S pecial or g eneral C ourt- M artial. Even though the Applicant had multiple violations of the UCMJ, 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 equitable and no more severe than the characterization of discharge given others in similar circumstances. Relief denied.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends his disc harge was inequitable , because other Applicants who committed more serious crimes or felonies received upgrades. 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 Marine Corps . A preponderance of the evidence reviewed supports the conclusion that the Applicant committed a serious offense, that separation from the Naval Serv ice was appropriate, and that an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge was warranted. Relief denied.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant mentions that he has not gotten into any trouble with the law since his discharge . 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. Besides the Applicant’s statement on the DD Form 293, he failed to provide any documentary evidence on his behalf for post-service consideration. The Applicant could have provided documentation as detailed in the Post-Service Conduct paragraph in the Addendum with the recognition that completion of these items alone does not guarantee an upgrade from an unfavorable discharge as each discharge is reviewed by the Board on a case by case basis to determine if post-service conduct establishes that the in-service misconduct was an aberration. Without post-service documentary evidence, the Board determined the awarded characterization of service shall remain Under Other Than Honorable Conditions. Relief denied.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant states that he has matured , thus implying immaturity contributed to his misconduct . While the Applicant may feel his youth and immaturity were underlying causes of his misconduct, the record clearly reflects his willful misconduct and demonstrated he was unfit for further service. The evidence of record does not demonstrate the Applicant was not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions. 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 for additional information.

Pertinent Regulation/Law

 A. Paragraph 6210, MISCONDUCT of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16E), 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 .

C. The Manual for Courts-Martial authorizes the award of a punitive discharge if adjudged as part of the sentence upon conviction by a special or general court-martial for violation of the UCMJ, Article 86 (Unauthorized absence in excess of 30 days) .


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 Disabled 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 | 2007_Marine | MD0700269

    Original file (MD0700269.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Discharge Process Date Notified: 20050727 Basis for Discharge: DUE TO Least Favorable Characterization: Commanding Officer’s Intended Recommendation: Date Applicant Responded to Notification:20050802Rights Elected at Notification: Consult with Counsel Obtain Copies of Documents Submit Statement(s) (date) Administrative Board NOT APPLICABLECommanding Officer Recommendation (date): (20050802) SJA review (date): (20050823) Separation Authority (date): COMMANDING GENERAL, 3D MARINE DIVISION...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700459

    Original file (ND0700459.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Medical and Service Record Entries, and Discharge Process, the Board found that Dissenting Opinion One board member voted to change the characterization to honorable based on the Applicant’s evaluation marks, overall performance and clear diagnosis of personality disorder. ” Additional Reviews : Subsequent to a document review, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing,...

  • USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1001784

    Original file (MD1001784.rtf) Auto-classification: 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 eligible for a...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1101116

    Original file (ND1101116.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 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. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted,...

  • USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1000490

    Original file (MD1000490.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 | 2013_Marine | MD1300657

    Original file (MD1300657.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to: HONORABLENarrative Reason change to:MEDICAL Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive:USMCR (DEP)20060628 - 20060709Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Current Enlistment: 20060710Age at Enlistment: Period of Enlistment: Years MonthsDate of Discharge:20060802Highest Rank:Length of Service: Year(s)Month(s)23 Day(s)Education Level: AFQT:74MOS: 9900Proficiency/Conduct Marks (# of occasions):NOB/NOBFitness Reports: Awards and...

  • USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1001070

    Original file (MD1001070.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The NDRB found the Applicant’s engagement in fraud warranted the General (Under Honorable Conditions) characterization.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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2014_Navy | ND1400728

    Original file (ND1400728.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant contends he should have his RE-Code upgraded.2. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1101755

    Original file (ND1101755.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant seeks a change to his narrative reason for separation in order to re-enlist in the National Guard.2. ” 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0901748

    Original file (MD0901748.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. Reenlistment/RE-code : Since the NDRB has no...