Upgrade.Vet

USMC | DRB | 2012_Marine | MD1201464

Original file (MD1201464.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-, USMC

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20120626

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)       20060526 - 20060723     Active:

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20060724     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Months
Date of Discharge: 20110125      H ighest Rank:
Length of Service : Y ea rs M on ths 02 D a ys
Education Level:        AFQT: 68
MOS: 2844
Proficiency/Conduct M arks (# of occasions): ( ) / ( )    Fitness R eports:

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      Rifle CoC LoA

Periods of CONF :

NJP:

- 20090601 :       Article (Absence without leave , squadron remedial PT program 0600, 13 May 2009 )
         Awarded: Suspended:

- 20091116 :      Article (Failure to obey order or regulation ; speeding in a government vehicle, 15 mph over posted speed limit )
         Awarded: Suspended:

- 20100609 :      Article (False official statement ; knowingly put false information on more than one equipment repair order )
         Awarded: Suspended: Vacated 20100803

- 20100804 :       Article (Insubordinate conduct toward warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer ; on or about 12 July 2010 did not complete assigned tasks and refused to work )
         Article (Failure to obey order or regulation ; on or about 12 July 2010, completed monthly inventories incorrectly by not correctly inspecting each item as ordered )
         Article 117 (Provoking speeches or gestures ; on or about 12 July 2010, replied to orders to return to work with disrespectful remarks and curse words )
         Awarded: Suspended:

- 20100820 :       Article (Absence without leave , 2 specifications )
         Specification 1: O n or about 2 August 2010 left his appointed place of duty without permission
         Specification 2: NFIR
         Article (Failure to obey order or regulation ; on 2 August 2010, while on the BCP program refused to take the PFT )
         Awarded: Suspended:

SCM:     SPCM:    CC:

Retention Warning Counseling :

- 20090504 :       For failure to notify chain of command and failure to report to his command on 20090427. SNM was UA on 20090427 and did not notify anyone of his location.

- 20090512 :       For assignment to the Marine Corps BCP.

- 20090601 :       For recent NJP for violation of Article 86.

- 20091112 :       For failure to comply with established weight/body composition standards while assigned to the Marine Corps BCP.

- 20091112 :       For your extension on the Marine Corps BCP . You have made reasonable progress but have failed to comply with established weight/body composition standards while on your first assignment to the BCP. Therefore, you have been granted a one- time extension of 6 months to meet the body composition standards set forth in MCO.6101.1.

- 20100609:       For your NJP for violating Article 107.

- 20100804 :       For Squadron NJP for Article 121, A ssault. On 20100804, you were held accountable for violation of Articles 91, 92, and 117 of the UCMJ.

- 20100805 :       For Squadron NJP for Article s 91, 92, and 117.

- 20100820 :       For Squadron NJP for Article s 86 and 92.

- 20100908 :       For your unsatisfactory performance while assigned to the Marine Corps BCP.

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

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

         “ MISCONDUCT ”

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 :

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 wa s too harsh , and his misconduct was not as severe as illegal drug use or alcohol - related misconduct.
2.       The Applicant contends personal problems that began after his tour in Iraq were a mitigating factor in his misconduct.
3 . The Applicant contends his post-service conduct is worthy of consideration for an upgrade .

Decision

Date: 20 1 3 0502          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. T he 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 ten 6105 counseling warnings and for o f the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 86 ( Absence without leave, 3 specifications), Article 92 ( Failure to obey order or regulation, 3 specifications) , Article 107 ( False official statement), Article 91 (Insubordinate conduct toward warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or pett y officer), and Article117 (Provoking speeches or gestures) . Based on the offense s committed by the Applicant, command administratively processed for separation. When notified of a dministrative separation processing using the procedure, the Applicant waived rights to consult with a qualified counsel, submit a written statement, and request an administrative board .

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends his discharge wa s too harsh , and his misconduct was not as severe as illegal drug use or alcohol - related misconduct. 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 met the requirements for separation due to Pattern of Misconduct, 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 contends personal problems that began after his tour in Iraq were a mitigating factor in his misconduct. While the Applicant may feel that his personal problems after returning from Iraq were a contributing factor to his misconduct, they do not mitigate his disobedience of the orders and directives that regulate good order and discipline in the Naval Service, demonstrating he was u nsuitable for further service. The NDRB determined his personal problems after returning from Iraq did not mitigate or excuse his frequent misconduct. Relief denied.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends his post-service conduc t is worthy of consideration for an upgrade . 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 a personal statement and college transcripts. The Applicant could have provided further documentation as detailed in the Post-Service Conduct paragraph in the Addendum , however, completion of these items alone does not guarantee an upgrade 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 the documentation submitted by the Applicant does

not demonstrate if in-service misconduct was an aberration. The characterization of service received was appropriate considering the length of service and UCMJ violations. 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 | 2013_Marine | MD1300346

Original file (MD1300346.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 | 2013_Marine | MD1300082

Original file (MD1300082.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Based on the Applicant’s failure to meet weight standards, command administratively processed for separation. 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...
USMC | DRB | 2013_Marine | MD1300299

Original file (MD1300299.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. During the Applicant’s four years of service he was found guilty at an NJP of violating UCMJ Article 86, received below-average Proficiency and Conduct marks of 4.1/3.9, and received 10 retention warnings for being UA, assignment to the BCP, failing the PFT and the CFT, lack of financial stability, poor judgment, and disloyal statements. ” Additional Reviews : After a...
USMC | DRB | 2015_Marine | MD1500105

Original file (MD1500105.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. 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 remain GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS) and the narrative reason for separation shall remain UNSATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE. ” Additional Reviews : After a...
USMC | DRB | 2015_Marine | MD1500957

Original file (MD1500957.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant’s record of service included 6105 counseling warnings, and for of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 86 (Absence without leave; 5 specifications), and Article 91 (Insubordinate conduct towards warrant, noncommissioned, or petty officer; 2 specifications). ” 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...
USMC | DRB | 2014_Marine | MD1400698

Original file (MD1400698.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

After a complete review of the records, the NDRB determined by majority vote that the negative aspects of the member’s conduct or performance of duty did not outweigh the positive aspects of the member’s service record, and an upgrade to Honorable is warranted.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...
USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1101847

Original file (MD1101847.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

I recommend that (the Applicant) be separated with an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions characterization of service.” On 11 February 2011, the Separation Authority directed that the Applicant be separated from the Marine Corps with an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge due to Misconduct (Pattern of Misconduct).Issues 1 and 2: (Decisional) () . Relief denied.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record...
USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1101479

Original file (MD1101479.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT Applicant’s Issues 1. In light of the nature of the misconduct, and the fact that his command considered his PTSD diagnosis in determining the characterization of service, the NDRB determined no change is warranted to the Applicant’s characterization of service or narrative reason for separation. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a...
USMC | DRB | 2015_Marine | MD1500967

Original file (MD1500967.rtf) Auto-classification: 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 remain GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS) and the narrative reason for separation shall remain . ” 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...
USMC | DRB | 2014_Marine | MD1401144

Original file (MD1401144.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Based on the Applicant’s unsatisfactory performance, command administratively processed for separation. The NDRB determined an upgrade would be inappropriate.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...

Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2012_Marine | MD1201464

Similar Decisions