Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2012_Marine | MD1200245
Original file (MD1200245.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-, USMC
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20111115
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)       20020926 - 20021027     Active:  

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20021028     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Months
Date of Discharge: 20080212      H ighest Rank:
Length of Service : Y ea rs M on ths 07 D a ys
Education Level:        AFQT: 63
MOS: 3043
Proficiency/Conduct M arks (# of occasions): ( ) / ( )    Fitness R eports:

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      Rifle (2) KDSM LoA (3) MM (3)

Periods of UA :

NJP:    SCM:              CC: Retention Warning Counseling :

SPCM:

- 20061025 :       Art icle 81 (Conspiracy , 2 specifications )
         Specification 1: Steal two X-Box video game systems by purchasing the X-Box system at a lower price that the actual retail price
         Specification 2: Larceny of DVD/VHS combo; 512mb XD Card; Two Playstation Portables
         Art icle (Larceny and wrongful appropriation , 4 specifications )
         Specification 1: Steal two X-Box video game systems of a value of $360.00, property of Marine Corps Community Services
         Specification 2: Steal a DVD/VHS combo of a value of $100.00
         Specification 3: Steal a 512mb XD Card of a value of $79.00
         Specification 4: Steal two Playstation Portables, two 20gb Apple IPods, one Panasonic Lumix digital camera, one digital camera, one Palm Pilot, one electric shaver, two 1gb memory cards, three UMD movies for the Playstation Portable, two compact disc s , one memory car d (size unknown), one X- Box game
         Sentence : CONF 120 days (20060929-20070104, 98 days)
                  CA: The sentence is approved and ordered executed







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 1105, DISCHARGE ADJUDGED BY SENTENCE OF COURT-MARTIAL , 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 IV, Para 403m(7)(a), 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 to enhance employment opportunities .
2.       The Applicant suggests his post-service achievements warrant consideration for an upgrade.

Decision

 Date: 20 1 2 1128            Location: Washington D.C .         R epresentation :

By a vote of the Characterization shall .
 By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall .
Discussion

 The NDRB reviewed the Applicant’s personal statement; the Applicant stated he was diagnosed with P ost- T raumatic S tress D isorder ( PTSD) related to his combat service in Iraq while on active duty . The Applicant’s military service record documents that he is a combat veteran, having served honorab ly during one combat deployment to Iraq (July 2005 - January 2006) in support of Operation IRAQI FREEDOM. The military service record further documents that he was awarded the Iraqi C ampaign Medal for his service. As a result of the Applicant’s claim of PTSD, in accordance with U.S. Code, Title 10, Section 1553 (d)(1), the Naval Discharge Review Board included a member who is a physician, clinical psychologist, or psychiatrist. In accordance with section 1553 (d)(2), the service secretary expedited a final decision and accorded the case sufficient priority to achieve an expedited resolution.

 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 NDRB presumes regularity in the conduct of Government affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the Applicant. With respect to a discharge adjudged by a court-martial case, 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. In response to the Applicant’s clemency request, relevant and material facts stated in a court-martial specification are presumed by the NDRB to be established facts. The Applicant’s case was considered under the pertinent standards of equity to determine if any factors in this particular case merited clemency. The Applicant’s record of service included special court-martial for violations of the UCMJ: Article 81 ( Conspiracy, 2 specifications: S pecification 1: Steal two X-Box video game systems by purchasing the X-Box system at a lower price that the actual retail price; Specification 2: L arceny of DVD/VHS combo; 512mb XD Card; two Playstation Portables ) and Article 121 (Larceny and wrongful appropriation , 4 specifications: S pecification 1: s teal two X-Box video game systems of a value of $360.00, property of Marine Corps Community Services ; S pecification 2: Steal a DVD/VHS combo of a value of $100.00; Specification 3: S teal a 512mb XD Card of a value of $79.00; Specification 4: S teal two Playstation Portables, two 20gb Apple IPods, one Panasonic Lumix digital camera, one digital camera, one Palm Pilot, one electric shaver, two 1gb memory cards, three UMD movies for the Playstation Portable, two compact disc s , one memory car d (size unknown), one X-box game ) . The Applicant’s service record documents a punitive conviction and punishment, as adjudged by a Special Court-Martial, on 25 October 2006. A qualified legal defense counsel represented the Applicant throughout the trial by Special Court-Martial process. Given the facts of the case, the Special Court-Martial awarded the Applicant a Bad Conduct Discharge and confinement for a period of 120 days. The case was submitted for review to the U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals without assignments of error; it was reviewed and the findings were affirmed on 24 January 2008. Subsequently, the Navy Marine Corps Appellate Leave Activity ordered the Bad Conduct Discharge executed.

: (Nondecisional) The Applicant seeks an upgrade to enhance employment 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.





: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant suggests his post-service achievements as evidenced by his college attendance, having a full time job , having a daughter, and staying out of trouble warrant consideration for an upgrade. 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 provided six character reference letters. 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. The Board determined clemency was not warranted based on the length of service and UCMJ violations. Clemency denied.

 The NDRB did not find any reference to a medical diagnosis of PTSD in the Applicant’s service record to support his claim, and the Applicant did not provide any documentary evidence of a medical diagnosis by competent medical authorities to support his claim . The NDRB determined the Applicant’s claim of PTSD did not mitigate his misconduct.

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 | 2002_Navy | ND02-00440

    Original file (ND02-00440.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The discharge shall remain: UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910 - 142 (formerly 3630605). After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (C and D).Issue 1: The Applicant believes his other than honorable discharge was very severe punishment and he would like an upgrade to his discharge so he can continue his Navy career...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003091524C070212

    Original file (2003091524C070212.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant’s request that the Board review the evidence of record and determine for itself whether his command proved that he was guilty of the charges preferred against him beyond a reasonable doubt and whether he was denied due process must also be addressed.

  • USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0500207

    Original file (MD0500207.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD05-00207 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20041103. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100018981

    Original file (20100018981.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests his bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to under honorable conditions (general). Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. The conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with applicable laws and regulations and the discharge appropriately characterizes the misconduct for which he was convicted.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1101018

    Original file (ND1101018.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.Applicant seeks a discharge upgrade to reenlist in the U.S. Armed Forces.2. After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, service record entries, court-martial proceedings, and the punitive discharge process, the NDRB found that clemency was not warranted and the sentence awarded the Applicant at his court-martial was...

  • AF | DRB | CY2007 | FD2006-00458

    Original file (FD2006-00458.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was found to be appropriate. Attachment: Examiner's Brief DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD ANDREWS AFB, MD (Former AB) (HGH AMN) 1. (No appeal) (No mitigation) 26 Jul 01, RAF Lakenheath, UK - Article 121.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120001289

    Original file (20120001289.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests transfer of the DA Form 67-9 (Officer Evaluation Report (OER)) covering the rating period 1 January through 10 November 2005 (hereafter referred to as the contested OER) from the performance section to the restricted section of her official military personnel file (OMPF). While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | AR20110024351

    Original file (AR20110024351.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? The evidence of record indicates that the applicant was adjudged guilty by court-martial and that the convening authority approved the sentence. After a thorough review of the applicant’s record and the application he submitted, the analyst found no cause for clemency and therefore recommends to the Board to deny clemency.

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130002458

    Original file (AR20130002458.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 11 August 2011, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. Two negative counseling statements dated 7 January 2011 and 21 March 2011, concerning the applicant shoplifting at the Army Air Force Exchange Services. The record confirms that the applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of his service was not consistent with the Army's standards for...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060012064

    Original file (AR20060012064.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    This would change his "Total Service" from 2 yrs, 4 mos, and 18 days, to 2 yrs, 2 mos, and 18 days. The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with a under other than honorable conditions discharge. Board Discussion, Determination, and Recommendation After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review and considering the analyst’s recommendation and rationale, the...