Upgrade.Vet

USMC | DRB | 2012_Marine | MD1200581

Original file (MD1200581.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-, USMC

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20120119

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)       19981130 - 19981213     Active:          19981214 - 20031001
                                             20031002 - 20080229
                                             20080301 - 20100211

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20100212     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Months
Date of Discharge: 20110401      H ighest Rank:
Length of Service : Y ea r ( s ) M on th ( s ) 21 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 63
MOS: 6287/6018
Fitness Reports:

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      Rifle (4) Pistol (3) (3) (2) (2) LoA (4)

Periods of UA / CONF :

NJP:

- 20101001 :      Article (Absence without leave, on or about 20100927 , SNM was absent from his appointed place of duty at VMFA 251 seat s hop work c enter, remained in an unauthorized absence status until 1110, 20100927)
         Awarded: Suspended:

SCM:

- 20101215 :      Article (Absence without leave , 6 s pecifications )
         Specification 1: On or about 20101029 without authority fail to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty, to wit: restriction muster at 0700 hours
         Specification 2: On or about 2010103 0 without authority fail to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty, to wit: restriction muster at 1100 hours
         Specification 3: On or about 20101031 without authority fail to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty, to wit: restriction muster at 1 1 00 hours
         Specification 4: On or about 20101 031 without authority fail to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty, to wit: restriction muster at 14 00 hours
         Specification 5: On or about 20101102 without authority fail to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty, to wit: restriction muster at 0700 hours
         Specification 6: On or about 20101114 without authority fail to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty, to wit: restriction muster at 1900 hours
         Sentence : RIR E-5

SPCM:    CC:

Retention Warning Counseling:

- 20101001 :      For violation of A rticle 86

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

The NDRB did note administrative error(s) on the original DD Form 214:

         “CONTINUOUS HONORABLE ACTIVE SERVICE FROM 981217 UNTIL 10021 1 ”
         “ ”

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 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 based on one count of Unauthorized Absence in 12 years and 4 months of service , and he was used as an example to others .

Decision

Date: 20 1 30103 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 6105 counseling warning and one non-judicial punishment for o f the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 86 ( Absence without leave, 1 specification). His record of service also included one summary court-martial for violations of the UCMJ: Article 86 (Absence without leave, 6 specifications). Based on the offenses committed by the Applicant, command administratively processed for separation. When notified of a dministrative separation processing us ing the procedure, the Applicant exercised his right to consult with a qualified counsel . He waived his rights to submit a written statement and request an administrative board .

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends his discharge was based on one count of Unauthorized Absence in 12 years and 4 months of service, and he was used as an example to others. The Applicant completed three prior enlistments for which he received Honorable discharges. Each period of enlistment is an independent obligation and characterization is determined for that specific period of time. In his current enlistment, he was found guilty at NJP of being UA, was issued a retention warning, and was found guilty two months later of violating six specifications of UCMJ Article 86 at a summary court-martial. The Applicant was a Staff Noncommissioned Officer (SNCO) at the time he commited the offense that led to his NJP and, therefore, was expected to uphold basic requirements of being a Marine leader . However, he failed to comply with the requirements of the awarded punishment , as expected of a SNCO, which resulted in additional violations of Article 86 that were adjudicated at a summary court-martial. According to documentation found in his service record, the Applicant disregarded multiple orders and was apathetic in doing so. The NDRB is convinced that, had the Applicant complied with the requirements of the punishment awarded at NJP, he would have been allowed to continue serving in the Marine Corps. The Board concluded that relief based on this issue is not warranted. 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 | 2001_Navy | ND01-01108

Original file (ND01-01108.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) also advised that the Board first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged in absentia on 000224 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to drug abuse (use) (A). The applicant can provide additional documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments at that time.
NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0601057

Original file (ND0601057.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Elements of Discharge: [BCD] Record of Trial Complete: Date Charges Preferred: 19830203 Date Charges Referred to Special Court-Martial: 19830215 Trial Date: 19830225Applicant requested BCD: Length of BCD Suspension:Date Applicant to Confinement: 19830225 Date Applicant from Confinement: 19830415Date Applicant to Voluntary Appellate Leave: 19830419NC&PB Action and Date: Clemency review waived 19920224NMCCA Action and Date: Affirmed findings and sentence on 19830727Date Appellate Review...
NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01105

Original file (ND02-01105.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

In the acknowledgement letter to the Applicant, he was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION The Manual for courts-martial authorizes the award of a punitive discharge if adjudged as part of the sentence upon conviction by a special or general court martial for violation of the UCMJ, Article 86- unauthorized absence.
NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-01041

Original file (ND04-01041.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ND04-01041 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20040607. 900710: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (21 specifications): UA from pre-trial restriction muster. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 19930222 with a bad conduct discharge which was the sentence adjudged by a properly convened special court-martial.
NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500776

Original file (ND0500776.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. While the Applicant may feel that there were mitigating factors to his misconduct, the record does not contain, nor did t he Applicant provide, any evidence to suggest that he was not responsible, or should not be held accountable, for his misconduct. The names, and votes of the members of the Board are recorded on the original of this document and may...
USMC | DRB | 2013_Marine | MD1301472

Original file (MD1301472.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. Regulations limit the NDRB’s review solely to a determination of the propriety and the equity of a discharge.Issue 2: (Decisional) (Propriety/Equity) RELIEF NOT WARRANTED. ” 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...
NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1301530

Original file (ND1301530.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge to help an Applicant’s life or to help him support his family. 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...
USMC | DRB | 2012_Marine | MD1201016

Original file (MD1201016.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Such matters are a function of the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR).During its review of the Applicant’s case, the NDRB became aware of an 8 May 2012 decision by the BCNR concerning the Applicant’s request for a change in his discharge characterization of service and narrative reason for separation made concurrently with his request for relief from the NDRB. 12631-11, the BCNR, after a review of the Applicant’s issues and contentions, determined that relief in the form of...
NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600312

Original file (ND0600312.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ND06-00312 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20051207. No indication of appeal in the record.900907: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Absence from appointed of duty, restricted muster 900907. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the Applicant’s issues were sufficient to merit clemency (C).
USMC | DRB | 2015_Marine | MD1500426

Original file (MD1500426.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant’s record of service included 6105 counseling warnings; for of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 86 (Absence without leave), Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation; 2 specifications), and Article 107 (False official statements); and for of the UCMJ: Article 86 (Absence without leave; 3 specifications), Article 91 (Insubordinate conduct toward warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer; 2 specifications), Article 92 (Failure to obey...

Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2012_Marine | MD1200581

Similar Decisions