Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1101590
Original file (MD1101590.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-, USMC
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20110614
Characterization of Service Received:
Narrative Reason for Discharge:
Authority for Discharge: MARCORSEPMAN

Applicant’s Request:      Characterization change to:
         Narrative Reason change to: End of Contract

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
 Inactive:         USMCR (DEP)       20001222 - 20001228     Active:  

Period of Service Under Review:
 Date of Current Enlistment: 20001229     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Months
Date of Discharge: 20020605      H ighest Rank:
Length of Service : Y ea r ( s ) M on th ( s ) 07 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 50
MOS: 0612
Proficiency/Conduct M arks (# of occasions): ( ) / ( )    Fitness Reports:

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      Rifle

Periods of UA / CONF :

NJP:

- 20020221 :      Article (Insubordinate conduct toward warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer, 3 specifications )
         Awarded: Suspended:

SCM:     SPCM:    Retention Warning Counseling:

CC:

- 2001092 6 :      Offense: Assault and menacing
         Sentence: Jail for 1 year, suspended and unsupervised probation for 5 years

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:        


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

Applicant’s Issues

 1.       The Applicant wants his Reentry (RE) Code changed.
2 .       The Applicant contends he did not fraudulently enlist in the Marine Corps , because on the date of his enlistment , he believed he was innocent of the pending charges, and a warrant was not issued until after he was already on active duty .
3 .       The Applicant indicates he is in college and will soon graduate with an Associate of Arts degree.

Decision

Date: 20 1 2 1011            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 non-judicial punishment (NJP) for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 91 ( Insubordinate conduct toward warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer, 3 specifications). It also included one civilian conviction for assault and menacing. The civilian charges occurred prior to the Applicant’s enlistment and were adjudicated during his enlistment . However, he failed to disclose th e information about the pending charge to his recruiter. Based on his failure to disclose the pre-service criminal charges that were pending against him, his command administratively processed him for separation due to fraudulent enlistment. When notified of a dministrative separation processing using the procedure, the Applicant exercised right to consult with a qualified counsel, and waived his rights to submit a written statement, and request a General Court-Martial Convening Authority review .

: (Non - decisional) The Applicant wants his Reentry (RE) Code changed . Since the NDRB has no jurisdiction over reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Navy, Marine Corps, or any other of the Armed Forces, it is not authorized to change an RE code. 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. Only the Board for Correction of Naval Records can make changes to RE codes.
: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends he did not fraudulently enlist in the Marine Corps , because on the date of his enlistment , he believed he was innocent of the pending charges, and a warrant was not issued until after he was already on active duty . Regardless of whether the Applicant had no fraudulent intentions because he believed he was innocent of the charges and, therefore, chose not to disclose his pre-service criminal charges during the enlistment process , he still had a responsibility and an obligation to fully disclose all aspects of pre-service involvement with law enforcement officials. A preponderance of the evidence reviewed indicates he deliberately chose not to disclose his pre-service involvement with law enforcement. According to regulations, an enlistment, induction, or period of service is fraudulent when there has been a deliberate material misrepresentation, including the omission or concealment of facts that, if known at the time, would have reasonably been expected to preclude, postpone, or otherwise affect the Marine ’ s eligibility for enlistment. The NDRB concluded that the Applicant’s failure to disclose his criminal history was deliberate; therefore, the assigned narrative reason for separation was proper, and relief in the characterization of service based on this issue was not warranted.

A review of the records shows that after the Marine Corps discovered he failed to disclose pre-service involvement with law enforcement, his command decided to retain him but observe his behavior for 90 days to determine his long-term potential for service as a Marine. This decision was based on his desire to remain in the Marine Corps and the limited period of observed time prior to his extradition. After successful completion of this 90-day period and extensive interviews with his command’s leadership, in January 2002, his commander initiated administrative action to recommend retention of the Applicant. However,

in February 2002, the Applicant went to nonjudicial punishment for three violation s of UCMJ Article 91 (Insubordinate conduct toward warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer ). Violation of Article 91 is considered a serious offense per Appendix 12 of the Manual for Courts-Martial and could have resulted in confinement and a punitive discharge (i.e., Bad Conduct) after a Special Court-Martial. At the very least, violations of this article typically result in an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge for Misconduct (Commission of a Serious Offense). However, his command did not pursue a punitive discharge, nor did they pursue administrative separation for the harsher Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge. Rather, they processed the Applicant for a General discharge for Fraudulent Entry. As stated above, the NDRB determined the discharge was proper. With regards to fairness, in light of what was facing the Applicant, he received a very equitable outcome with a General discharge for Fraudulent Entry. Relief denied.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant indicates he is in college and will soon graduate with an Associate of Arts degree. 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 evidence of college attendance. To warrant an upgrade, the Applicant’s post-service efforts need to be more encompassing. He 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. The Board determined that the documentation submitted by the Applicant does not demonstrate if his 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.

Pertinent Regulation/Law

 A. The Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, MCO P1900.16F), effective 1 September 2001 until Present, paragraph 6204, DEFECTIVE ENLISTMENT AND INDUCTION.

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 .




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

  • USMC | DRB | 2012_Marine | MD1201576

    Original file (MD1201576.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/ToCongress member: DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD...

  • USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1100365

    Original file (MD1100365.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to: Narrative Reason change to:CONVENIENCE OF THE GOVERNMENT Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive:USMCR (DEP)20020806 - 20021104Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Current Enlistment: 20021105Age at Enlistment: Period of Enlistment: Years MonthsDate of Discharge:20021127Highest Rank: Length of Service: Years Months23 DaysEducation Level: AFQT:63MOS: 9900Proficiency/Conduct Marks (# of occasions):NONE / NONEFitness Reports: Awards...

  • USMC | DRB | 2013_Marine | MD1300498

    Original file (MD1300498.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 | MD1400968

    Original file (MD1400968.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. ” Additional Reviews :...

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0902072

    Original file (MD0902072.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Regulations limit the NDRB’s review to a determination of the propriety and equity of the discharge.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. ...

  • USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1101768

    Original file (MD1101768.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. ” 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. Reenlistment/RE-code : Since the NDRB has no jurisdiction...

  • USMC | DRB | 2013_Marine | MD1301484

    Original file (MD1301484.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 | 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2012_Marine | MD1200937

    Original file (MD1200937.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. 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 but the narrative reason for separation shall change to.The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing for a period of fifteen...

  • USMC | DRB | 2015_Marine | MD1500356

    Original file (MD1500356.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Based solely on the Applicant’s self-referral for treatment, the Separation Authority may not use the Applicant’s drug abuse in the determination of the Applicant’s characterization of service. 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 change to GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS) and the narrative reason for...