Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1101332
Original file (MD1101332.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-, USMC
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20110428
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)       20011011 - 20011029     Active:  

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20011030     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Months
Date of Discharge: 20050224      H ighest Rank:
Length of Service : Y ea r ( s ) M on th ( s ) 26 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 53
MOS: 3043
Proficiency/Conduct M arks (# of occasions): ( ) / ( )    Fitness R eports:

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

Periods of UA / CONF :

NJP:

- 20030423 :       Article ( General A rticle - c onducted himself in a drunk and disorderly manner in that he urinated on his roommate)
         Awarded : Susp ended:

- 20030528 :       Article ( Fail to obey order or regulation - d isobeyed MAG-24 p olicy in that on divers e occasions wrongfully utilized a computer belong ing to the U.S. Government by using e - mail to plan various pranks or practical jokes)
         Awarded : Susp ended:

- 20030923 :      Article (Insubordinate conduct toward a non commissioned officer)
         Article ( Fail to obey order or regulation - by wearing an earring while on liberty and refused to remove the earring when ordered to )
         Awarded: Susp ended:

SCM:                               SPCM:                     CC:

Retention Warning Counseling :

- 20031203 :       For being involved in both a verbal and physical altercation resulting in injuries requiring medical attention , stemming from excessive alcohol consumption.

- 20040707 :       For failure to act appropriately to alleviate the situation and keeping it from escalating .



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 contends his discharge is inequitable , because it was based on an a dministrative s eparation b oard held over one year after his last NJP.

Decision

Date: 20 1 2 0313            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 Board did complete a thorough review of the circumstances that led to discharge and the discharge process to ensure discharge met the pertinent sta ndards of equity and propriety. The Applicant’s record of service included 6105 counseling warnings and for o f the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 91 ( Insubordinate conduct toward a noncommissioned officer ), Article 92 ( Fail to obey order or regulation , 2 specific ation s : disobeyed MAG-24 policy in that on divers e occasions wrongfully utilized a computer belonging to the U.S. Government by using e - mail to plan various pranks or practical jokes, and wearing an earring while on liberty and refused to remove the earring when ordered to ), and Article 134 ( General A rticle - conducted himself in a drunk and disorderly manner in that he urinated on his roommate ) . Based on the offenses committed by the Applicant, command administratively processed for separation. When notified of a dministrative separation processing using the procedure, the Applicant waived rights to consult with a qualified counsel and submit a written statement, but elected to appear before an administrative board . The Applicant appeared before the A dministrative S eparation B oard (ASB) on 28 October 2004. The ASB determined by a unanimous vote, 3-0, that the preponderance of the evidence supported the notification for separation, and the ASB recommended that the Applicant should be separated from the Marine Corps with an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions characterization (suspended for 12 months) . The command and separating authority disagreed with the ASB’s recommendation for discharge suspension and discharged him accordingly.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends his discharge is inequitable , because it was based on an a dministrative s eparation b oard held over one year after his last NJP. The record of evidence reflects the Applicant was separated for a pattern of misconduct. Per the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual , a Marine can be separated for a Pattern of Misconduct (POM) when a “ minimum of TWO incidents occurring within one enlistment is required. Misconduct occurring in an extension of an enlistment is considered to be within one enlistment. The infractions may be minor or more serious. There must be discreditable involvement with civil or military authorities or conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline. The misconduct need not have been the subject of NJP or military or civilian conviction. ” The Applicant’ s record clearly indicates he had three NJPs for four UCMJ Article violations and two retention warning counseling (6105 entries) , which establish ed a pattern of misconduct within the same enlistment.

The Applicant was notified by his command of separation proceedings for POM on 20 Jul 2004 after his last 6105 entry on 07 July 2004 . He was warned in a n earlier 6105 entry on 03 December 2003 that any further UCMJ violation may result in administrative separation. The Applicant subsequent ly elected to appear before the ASB , whose recommendation to suspend the discharge was disapproved . Based on the Applicant’s record of service, the NDRB determined the Applicant engaged in conduct involving one or more acts or omissions that constituted a significant departure from the conduct expected of members of the Naval Service, and the awarded characterization of service was warranted . Minimum Proficiency/Conduct marks of 4.0/4.0 to receive an Honorable are only relevant when a Marine reaches his expiration of active obligated service. Because the Applicant was separated for a Pattern of Misconduct, his characteri zation was based on his service and was properly and equitably determined to be Under Other Than Honorable Conditions. 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

  • NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1100180

    Original file (ND1100180.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The ASB, after examining all the evidence, to include the Applicant’s service records, testimony provided by the Applicant, character witnesses, and a PhD representative from the Naval Drug Lab, found by a preponderance of the evidence (2-1 vote) that the Applicant had committed misconduct and further recommended he be separated from the Navy with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge.Despite a servicemember’s prior record of service, certain serious offenses, even though...

  • USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1002221

    Original file (MD1002221.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Per Marine Corps regulations, consultation with civilian counsel shall not unduly delay administrative separation board proceedings. ” 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 | 2012_Marine | MD1201582

    Original file (MD1201582.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.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1000978

    Original file (ND1000978.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant seeks a change in his RE-code in order to reenlist into the Armed Forces.2. 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1001222

    Original file (MD1001222.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Commanding Officer did not agree with the ASB’s recommendation for characterization and recommended to the separation authority that the Applicant receive an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions characterization. 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...

  • 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 | 2013_Marine | MD1300250

    Original file (MD1300250.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Based on the Applicant’s record of service, which included below-average Conduct marks, three retention warnings, and three NJPs, the NDRB determined the Applicant warranted an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions characterization, however, the NDRB is not authorized to change a discharge characterization of service to a more unfavorable level. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0901021

    Original file (ND0901021.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 . ” 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1201185

    Original file (ND1201185.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The NDRB conducted a thorough review of the Applicant’s DD Form 293 and the documentation he submitted in support of his contentions, his service record, the ASB proceedings, letter of deficiency, and Separation Authority’s decision and determined there was no impropriety or inequity in the Applicant’s discharge process, his characterization of service, or the Narrative Reason for Separation. Relief denied.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the...

  • USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1000424

    Original file (MD1000424.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Although the characterization of service was warranted by his actions, the lack of due process resulted in the improper processing of his separation. Relief granted.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 change to . ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has...