Upgrade.Vet

USMC | DRB | 2012_Marine | MD1200184

Original file (MD1200184.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-, USMC

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20111025

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)       20061010 - 20061213     Active:

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20061214     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Months
Date of Discharge: 20100824      H ighest Rank:
Length of Service : Y ea r ( s ) M on th ( s ) 11 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 44
MOS: 1141
Proficiency/Conduct M arks (# of occasions): /          Fitness R eports:

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      Rifle (2) MM

Periods of UA : 20080607-20080705 ( 29 days ); 20081103-20081119 ( 18 days )

NJP:
- 20070608 :       Article (Failure to obey order or regulation - wearing a tongue ring)
         Awarded: Suspended:

- 20070831 :      Article (False official statements)
         Article (Larceny - did steal a Marine’s ATM/Debit card and withdrew money then discarded card )
         Awarded: Suspended:

- 20090507 :      Article (Absence without leave - 0730, 20090408 - 0730, 20090415, 8 days)
         Article (Disrespect toward a superior commissioned officer)
         Awarded: Suspended:
SCM:
- 20090112 :       Art icle (Absence without leave - 20080707-20080919, 73 days)
         Sentence : 45 DAYS (dates NFIR)

Retention Warning Counseling :
- 20070611 :       For failing to obey a direct order by wearing a tongue ring in your tongue.

- 20070831 :       For violation of Articles 107 and 121.

- 20070926 :       For your lack of judgment. Specifically, your decision to leave the barracks and the 62 A rea while on barracks restriction. Your poor judgment and failure to follow orders are not consistent with the Marine Corps Core Values of Honor, Courage , and Commitment.

- 20090507 :       For my company level nonjudicial punishment.

SPCM:    CC:

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 was too severe for the offenses he committed , and he contends his punishment was harsher than what others received .
2.       The Applicant believes his post-service conduct is worthy of consideration.

Decision

Date: 20 1 2 1126          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 standards of equity and propriety. The Applicant’s record of service included 6105 counseling warnings, for o f the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 86 ( Absence without leave, 0730, 20090408 - 0730, 20090415, 8 days), Article 89 ( Disrespect toward a superior commissioned officer ), Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation, wearing a tongue ring), Article 107 ( False official statements ), and Article 121 ( Larceny , did steal a Marine’s ATM/Debit card and withdrew money then discarded card ) , and for of the UCMJ: Article 86 ( Absence without leave , 20080707-20080919, 73 days ). Based on the offenses committed by the Applicant, command administratively processed for separation. The NDRB did not have the Applicant’s administrative separation package to determine whether or not the Applicant waived his rights to consult with a qualified counsel and submit a written statement. However, the Applicant has a G KA 1 separation code on his DD Form 214 , which indicates he exercised his right to an administrative board.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends his discharge was too severe for the offenses he committed , and he contends his punishment was harsher than what others received . 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. 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 Articles 86, 89, 92, 107, and 121 of the UCMJ are such offenses. Violations of these articles usually results in an unfavorable characterization of discharge, or , at a maximum, a punitive discharge (i.e., Bad Conduct) 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 serious 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 Applicant’s command was particularly lenient in not referring the Applicant to a Special Court-Martial for the 73-day period of unauthorized absence. Despite being given multiple opportunities to correct his behavior, the Applicant continued to commit serious misconduct. The characterization of the Applicant ’ s discharge was equitable and no more severe than the characterization of discharge given others in similar circumstances. 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 multiple serious offense s , that separation from the Naval Service was appropriate, and that a n Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge was warranted. Relief denied.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant stated he has not been in trouble 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.

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

USMC | DRB | 2012_Marine | MD1200190

Original file (MD1200190.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to: Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive:USMCR (DEP)20020801 - 20030526Active:20030527 - 20070711 Period of Service Under Review: Date of Current Enlistment: 20070712Age at Enlistment: Period of Enlistment: Years MonthsDate of Discharge:20110328Highest Rank:Length of Service: Year(s)Month(s)17 Day(s)Education Level: AFQT:82MOS: 4421Proficiency/Conduct Marks (# of occasions):/Fitness Reports: Awards and Decorations...
USMC | DRB | 2014_Marine | MD1400855

Original file (MD1400855.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...
NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1200331

Original file (ND1200331.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: Pertinent Regulation/Law A. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL...
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...
NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0901807

Original file (ND0901807.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant contends she had disclosed her pre-service marijuana use to the military entrance medical doctors upon her entrance in the Navy, that the separation authority did not attempt to develop tangible evidence to show her enlistment was fraudulent or could be characterized as such, and that her command acted unfairly and misused their command authority and discretion when deciding to pursue her separation from the Navy.In the Applicant’s argument regarding Issue 2, she stated...
NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1101708

Original file (ND1101708.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. 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.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,...
USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1002096

Original file (MD1002096.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 | 2011_Navy | ND1101296

Original file (ND1101296.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 | MD0902091

Original file (MD0902091.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, medical and 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 | 2005_Marine | MD0501004

Original file (MD0501004.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions). Not appealed.020114: Counseling: Advised of deficiencies in performance and conduct (Violation of Article 86, at MCD, Ft Lee, VA, in that you were on or about 1215/020110 UA from your appointed place of duty at large garrison messhall and did remain so until 1620/020110. 040625: GCMCA, Commanding General, Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton...

Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2012_Marine | MD1200184

Similar Decisions