Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2012_Marine | MD1201140
Original file (MD1201140.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-, USMC
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20120424
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)       19930630 - 19940620     Active:   19940621 - 19980620 HON
         USMCR ( IRR )       19980621 - 20010629 HON           20010807 - 20041114 HON
USMCR (DEP) 20010802 - 20010806

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20041115     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Months
Date of Discharge: 20090212      H ighest Rank:
Length of Service : Y ea r ( s ) M on th ( s ) 28 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 40
MOS: 0369
Fitness R eports:

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      (2) NMCAM (2) (Iraq) (8) KDSM (2) CoC (Individual Award) (5) CoA (5) LoA (2)

Periods of UA / CONF :

NJP:     SCM:              SPCM:    CC:      Retention Warning Counseling :

CIVIL ARREST:
- NFIR :   Charges: Rape Second Degree, Fo u rth Degree Sex Offense, Second Degree Assault

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 0 1 0807 UNTIL 041114 ”
        
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:                  Oth er Documentation:    
                  Additional Statements :
          From Applicant:            From /To Representation:            From /To Congress m ember :        


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

Applicant’s Issues

 1.       The Applicant contends he and his family continue to suffer the adverse effects of the discharge.
2.       The Applicant contends the re was a lack of due process , his charges were reduced to misdemeanors, and he was summarily discharged before a final determination of charges was concluded by the civilian prosecutor .
3.       The Applicant contends his previous Honorable enlistment, record of service , numerous medals and awards , and combat service in Afghanistan outweigh his misconduct.
4.       The Applicant contends his post-service conduct is worthy of consideration.
5.       The Applicant contends other Marines convicted of felonies were allowed to remain in the service or received Honorable discharges .

Decision

Date : 20 1 2 1212            Location: Washington D.C .         R epresentation :

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

Discussion

 As a result of the Applicant’s claim of P ost-Traumatic Stress Disorder (P TSD ) and Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) , in accordance with U.S. Code, Title X, 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 reviewed the Applicant’s personal statement; the Applicant reported to the VA in May 2010 that he suffered from PTSD and TBI symptoms. The Applicant stated he served in combat in Afghanistan, and his record of service reveals that he received a Combat Action Ribbon for service in Iraq.

 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. In his current enlistment, t he Applicant’s record of service did not include any 6105 counseling warnings, nonjudicial punishments (NJPs) , or trials by court-martial for violation s of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) . However, documentation found in his service record indicated he was arrested by civilian authorities and charged with second degree rape, fo u rth degree sex offense, and second degree assault. Based on the preponderance of the evidence that he committed the offense s as demonstrated by his arrest, command administratively processed for separation. When notified of a dministrative separation processing using the procedure, the Applicant exercis ed right to request an administrative board , but it was unclear as to whether he exercised or waived his rights to consult with a qualified counsel and submit a written statement . The administrative separation board voted 3 to 0 that the preponderance of the evidence proved all acts or omissions alleged in the notification and recommended that the Applicant be separate d from the Marine Corps, that the characterization of service sh ould be Under Other Than Honorable Conditions, that separation should not be suspended , and that he should not be retained in the Individual Ready Reserve . The Separation Authority concurred with the recommendations and ordered the Applicant to be discharged Under Other Than Honorable Conditions for Misconduct (Serious Offense).

: (Nondecisional) The Applicant contends he and his family continue to suffer the adverse effects of the discharge. The NDRB acknowledges the Applicant’s desire to provide a better life for himself and his family , however, this iss ue does not serve to provide a foundation upon which the Board can grant relief. The NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing a former servicemember’s ability to provide a better life for himself or his family. Regulations limit the Board’s review to a determination of the propriety and equity of the discharge.



: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends there was a lack of due process, his charges were reduced to misdemeanors, and he was summarily discharged before a final determination of charges was concluded by the civilian prosecutor. In reviewing cases, the NDRB is not bound by decisions of the civilian courts to reduce or dismiss charges subsequent to the Applicant’s discharge. However, such information can be and was considered by the NDRB in making a determination as to the equity of the characterization of service. The commission of a serious offense does not require adjudication by nonjudicial, judicial proceedings, or civilian conviction, however, the offense must be substantiated by a preponderance of evidence. The Applicant was notified of separation due to commission of a serious offense as evidenced by the civilian charges of second degree rape, fo u rth degree sex offense, and second degree assault . The Applicant was provided the opportunity to present his case before an administrative board , and he exercised this right. The administrative separation board voted 3 to 0 that the preponderance of the evidence proved all acts or omissions alleged in the notification and recommended that the Applicant be separated from the Marine Corps U nder Other Than Honorable Conditions. The Applicant was not discharged for Misconduct (Civilian Conviction) and so a conviction was not needed to initiate separation processing for Misconduct (Serious Offense). Per the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, the offense must be substantiated by a preponderance of the evidence, which was met with the civilian charges against the Applicant. Even with the reduced charges, the NDRB determined the discharge was proper and equitable. Relief denied.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends his previous Honorable enlistment, record of service, numerous medals and awards, and combat service in Afghanistan outweigh his misconduct. The Applicant received Honorable discharges for enlistments from June 1994 to June 1998 and from August 2001 to November 2004. Each period of enlistment is an independent obligation and characterization is determined for that specific period of time. In his current enlistment, the Applicant was arrested by civil authorities and charged with several offenses, which were subsequently reduced to misdemeanors. Despite a servicemember’s prior record of service, certain serious offenses, even though isolated, warrant separation from the to maintain proper order and discipline. Violation of Articles 120 (Sexual Assault) and 128 (Assault) are two offenses that warrant processing for administrative separation regardless of grade, performance, or time in service. The Applicant was administratively separated and not separated upon expiration of enlistment or fulfillment of service obligation. The characterization of service is determined by the quality of the member’s total performance of duty and conduct during the current enlistment, including the reason for separation. Other considerations shall be given to the member’s length of service, grade, aptitude, and physical and mental condition. The NDRB also considered possible mitigation of the offense after noting that the Applicant claimed he was suffering from the effects of PTSD and TBI at a post-service VA exam in May 2010. After a thorough review of the records and b ased on the Applicant’s record of service, the NDRB determined that PTSD and TBI did not mitigate the seriousness of the offense and further determined the Applicant engaged in conduct involving one or more acts or omissions that constituted a significant departure from the conduct expected of members of the Naval Service . Therefore, the awarded characterization of service will remain unchanged . Relief denied.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends his post- service behavior has been exemplary as a citizen, taxpayer, and family man . 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 VA service-connected compensation documentation, proof of VA health exams, his plea agreement with a civilian court, a VA rehabilitation plan, an employer character reference letter, a criminal background check, and in-service letters of appreciation for volunteer activities. 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. T he Board determined the awarded characterization of service shall remain Under Other Than Honorable Conditions. Relief denied.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends other Marines convicted of felonies were allowed to remain in the service or received Honorable discharges , and his discharge was too severe for the offense . 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. 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 a serious offense, that separation from the Naval Service was appropriate, and that an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge was warranted. The NDRB found the characterization of the Applicant’s discharge was equitable and consistent with the characterization of discharge given others in similar circumstances. Relief denied.

S ummary: 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. Paragraph 6210, MISCONDUCT of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16E), 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 .

C. 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 s 120 and 128.


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 | 2014_Marine | MD1400629

    Original file (MD1400629.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. With this misconduct, the Applicant met the requirements to be administratively separated for Misconduct (Serious Offense) and Misconduct (Pattern of Misconduct). ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance...

  • USMC | DRB | 2013_Marine | MD1300419

    Original file (MD1300419.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 | 2013_Marine | MD1301298

    Original file (MD1301298.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. ” 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2013_Marine | MD1301662

    Original file (MD1301662.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Authority for Discharge:MARCORSEPMAN & Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to: Narrative Reason change to: Summary of ServicePrior Service: Inactive:USMCR (DEP)20040622 - 20040629Active: 20040630 - 20081114 Period of Service Under Review: Date of Current Enlistment: 20081115Age at Enlistment: Period of Enlistment: Years MonthsDate of Discharge:20100609Highest Rank: Length of Service: Year(s)Month(s)25 Day(s)Education Level: AFQT:58MOS: 7257Proficiency/Conduct Marks (# of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2014_Navy | ND1400387

    Original file (ND1400387.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Naval Discharge Review Board, however, included a Navy psychiatrist due to his claim of TBI.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 the presumption, to include evidence...

  • USMC | DRB | 2013_Marine | MD1301050

    Original file (MD1301050.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Separation Authority (Commanding General, Marine Corps Base Hawaii) disagreed with the recommendation to suspend the separation and ordered the Applicant to be discharged Under Other Than Honorable Conditions for Misconduct (Serious Offense). ” 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,...

  • USMC | DRB | 2012_Marine | MD1200662

    Original file (MD1200662.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant admitted that he was guilty of the offenses, which was necessary for his request for separation to be approved, but now contends the medication he received following his TBI (which was caused by a fall after an improperly diagnosed anti-anxiety drug) led to his misconduct.Documentation from the Applicant’s military medical records reflects he was diagnosed with PTSD and Chronic Pain Syndrome while in service. Relief denied.Summary: After a thorough review of the available...

  • USMC | DRB | 2014_Marine | MD1400380

    Original file (MD1400380.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. The NDRB does not have the jurisdictional authority to review a discharge or dismissal resulting from a general court-martial.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2015_Navy | ND1500561

    Original file (ND1500561.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall .Discussion The Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) determined relief is warranted based on equitable grounds based on Issue # 10 due to the Applicant’s service connected cognitive defects. Based on the offense(s) committed by the Applicant, command administratively processed for separation. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application is...

  • USMC | DRB | 2012_Marine | MD1201467

    Original file (MD1201467.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The administrative board voted 3-0 that the preponderance of the evidence supported that the Applicant had conducted Misconduct (Drug Abuse) and recommended the Applicant be separated with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) characterization. The Applicant contends his command and Separation Authority failed to properly consider MARADMIN 328/10and discharged him for misconduct rather than for a physical disability. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted,...