Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1101387
Original file (MD1101387.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-, USMC
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20110510
Characterization of Service Received:
Narrative Reason for Discharge:
Authority for Discharge: SECNAVINST 1920.6A

Applicant’s Request:      Characterization change to:
         Narrative Reason change to:

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
 Inactive:         USMCR (OCS )       19960329 - 19960815     Active:  

Period of Service Under Review:
 Date of Appointment : 19960816     Age:
Years Contracted: Indefinite
Date of Discharge: 19990226       Highest Rank : SECOND LIEUTENANT
Length of Service: 02 Years 06 Months 11 Days
Education Level:         AFQT: NFIR
Officer’s Fitness reports: Available
Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      NONE

Periods of UA / CONF :

NJP: 1

- 19981008 :      Article 90 (Assaulting or willfully disobeying a superior commissioned officer)
         Article 107 (False official statement)
         Article 133 (Conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman , 2 specifications)
         Article 134 (General A rticle)
          Awarded: RESTR PUNITIVE LETTER OF REPRIMAND Suspended:

SCM: NONE SPCM: NONE CC: NONE

Retention Warning Counseling: 2

- 19980626:      For UA from morning formation, being inebriated at work, personal appearance at a battalion social function, and failure to complete routine tasks as the Battery Training Officer

 - 19981202 :      For unauthorized absence from restriction

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

The NDRB did note administrative errors on the original DD Form 214:

          “ UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONIDTIONS ”
         “ IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT-MARTIAL ”

 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:                  Other Documentation:    
                  Additional Statements:
         From Applicant:           From/To Representation:           From/To Congress member:        

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. The Applicant seeks an upgrade for employment opportunities.
2. The Applicant contends his discharge was handled in an unjust manner by his command.
3 . The Applicant contends family problems arose during his service and that he asked for help but received none.
4 . The Applicant believes his post-service conduct is worthy of consideration.

Decision

Date: 20 1 2 0712            Location: Washington D.C .         R epresentation : NONE

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 one 6105 counseling warning and one nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 90 (Assaulting or willfully disobeying a superior commissioned officer), Article 107 (False official statement), Article 133 (Conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman , 2 specifications), and Article 134 (General A rticle). The specifics of the charges the Applicant was facing at court-martial were not found in his records. However, in order for the Applicant to be separated In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial (SILT), he must have been afforded counsel , and he must have requested the separation through the convening authority.

: (Nondecisional) The Applicant seeks an upgrade for employment opportunities. The NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment opportunities . Regulations limit the NDRB’s review to a determination of the propriety and equity of the discharge.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends his discharge was handled in an unjust manner by his command. 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 he was wrongfully discharged. The Applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity in thi s case. A thorough review of the Applicant’s service records show that he was properly and equitably discharged. Relief denied.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends family problems arose during his service and that he asked for help but received none. A fter reviewing the Applicant’s issues, supporting documents , and the evidence of record, the NDRB found no evidence that his command did not properly respond to the Applicant’s personal problems. The NDRB discerned no impropriety or inequity in the Applicant’s separation. Relief denied.

4: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant believes his post-service conduct is worthy of consideration. The NDRB considers 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. The Applicant provided a personal statement and a letter of reference from his uncle. The Applicant could have provided documentation as detailed in the Post-Service Conduct paragraph in the Addendum , however, 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. To warrant an upgrade, the Applicant’s post-service efforts need to be more encompassing. The Board determined that the documentation submitted by the Applicant does not demonstrate if in-service misconduct was an aberration. 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), 701 South Courthouse Road, Suite 1001, Arlington, VA 22204-2490 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 | ND1101369

    Original file (ND1101369.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant seeks an upgrade to further his service in the National Guard.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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2013_Marine | MD1300754

    Original file (MD1300754.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 UNACCEPTABLE CONDUCT.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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1300575

    Original file (ND1300575.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to:Narrative Reason change to: Summary of ServicePrior Service: Inactive: NONE Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Appointment: 20051221Age: 27Years Contracted: Indefinite Date of Discharge: 20110430 Highest Rank: LIEUTENANTLength of Service: Year(s) Month(s) 10 Day(s) Education Level: Officer’s Fitness reports: AvailableAwards and Decorations (per DD 214):Periods of UA/CONF: NJP:- 20100526: Article (Failure to obey order or...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801407

    Original file (ND0801407.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to:Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive: USN(US Naval Academy)Start date NFIR - 20040527Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Appointment:20040528 Years Contracted: Years Months Date of Discharge: 20070131Length of Service: Years Months04 Days Education Level: Age at Enlistment:Highest Rank: Officer’s Fitness reports:the Board for review.Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):NONE Discharge Process...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1301712

    Original file (ND1301712.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to:Narrative Reason change to: Summary of ServicePrior Service: Inactive: USN (Nurse Candidate Program) 20040108 - 20050421 Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Appointment: 20050422Age: 20Years Contracted: Indefinite Date of Discharge: 20091031 Highest Rank: LTJGLength of Service: Year(s) Month(s) 10 Day(s) Education Level: AFQT: NFIROfficer’s Fitness reports: AvailableAwards and Decorations (per DD 214):Pistol Periods of UA/CONF: NJP:-...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1301535

    Original file (ND1301535.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Representation: By a vote of the Characterization shall .By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall SUFFICIENT SERVICE FOR RETIREMENT.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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1201619

    Original file (ND1201619.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to:Narrative Reason change to: Summary of ServicePrior Service: Inactive: USN (DEP) 19970916 - 19980513 Active: 19980514 - 20011114 HON USN 20011115 - 20061215 HON Period of Service Under Review: Date of Appointment: 20061216Age: 30Years Contracted: Indefinite Date of Discharge: 20120531 Highest Rank: LTLength of Service: Year(s) Month(s) 16 Day(s) Education Level: AFQT: 97Officer’s Fitness reports: AvailableAwards and Decorations (per DD...

  • USMC | DRB | 2013_Marine | MD1301632

    Original file (MD1301632.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 .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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2015_Marine | MD1500932

    Original file (MD1500932.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. The record documents...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1300151

    Original file (ND1300151.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. A request for a waiver can be submitted during the processing of a formal application for reenlistment through a recruiter.