Upgrade.Vet

USMC | DRB | 2013_Marine | MD1300504

Original file (MD1300504.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-, USMC

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20121231

Characterization of Service Received:

Narrative Reason for Discharge:

Authority for Discharge: MARCORSEPMAN

Applicant’s Request:      Characterization change to:
         Narrative Reason change to: COMPLETION OF REQUIRED ACTIVE SERVICE

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive:         USMCR (DEP)       20100402 - 20101128     Active:

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20101129     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Months
Date of Discharge: 20120824      H ighest Rank:
Length of Service : Y ea r ( s ) M on th ( s ) 26 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 34
MOS: 0311
Proficiency/Conduct M arks (# of occasions): ( ) / ( )    Fitness R eports:

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

Periods of UA / CONF :

NJP:

- 20120611 :       Article (Failure to obey order or regulation, was derelict in his duties by urinating off his post and exposing his penis while in the presence of a local national at 1st BN, 8th Mar, RCT-6, 1st MarDiv (Fwd), Afghanistan )
         Awarded: Suspended:

SPCM:    CC:

Retention Warning Counseling :

- 20120616 :       For dereliction of duty in the Kajaki District of Afghanistan by urinating off your post and exposing your penis to a local national while doing so

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 wants to have any bar to further military service removed.
2 .       The Applicant contends there was a conflict of interest with his legal advisor being the Battalion’s Judge Advocate.
3 .       The Applicant contends he was misled to believe he needed to waive his administrative board to avoid an Article 120 conviction at either Special or General Courts-Martial.
4 .       The Applicant contends his discharge wa s too harsh.

Decision

Date: 20130925          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 for o f the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article (Failure to obey order or regulation, was derelict in his duties by urinating off his post and exposing his penis while in the presence of a local national at 1st BN, 8th Mar, RCT-6, 1st MarDiv (Fwd), Afghanistan ) . Further, the record shows the Applicant was found guilty at S ummary C ourt- M artial on 29 May 2012. However, the Applicant entered into a post-trial agreement with the Convening Authority on 08 June 2012 where the Applicant agreed to plead guilty at NJP and waive his right to an administrative board if the Convening Authority would disapprove the findings from the Summary Court-Martial. Based on the offense committed by the Applicant, command administratively processed for separation. When notified of administrative separation processing using the procedure, the Applicant exercised right to consult with a qualified counsel, but waived his rights to submit a written statement and request an administrative board per his post-trial agreement .

Issue 1: (Nondecisional) The Applicant wants to have any bar to further military service removed. 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 Board for Correction of Naval Records 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.

Issues 2-3 : (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends that there was a conflict of interest with his legal advisor being the Battalion’s Judge Advocate , and he was misled to believe he needed to waive his administrative board to avoid an Article 120 conviction at either Special or General Courts-Martial. The record clearly shows the Applicant voluntarily submitted a post-trial agreement to the Convening Authority on 08 June 2012 where the Applicant agreed to plead guilty at NJP and waive his right to an administrative board . Further, the record shows the Applicant was satisfied with his defense counsel at the time he submitted his post-trial agreement and the Staff Judge Advocate determined the case was legally sufficient on 04 July 2012. Therefore, the NDRB presume s regularity in governmental affairs that any actual or perceived impropriety that occurred prior to 08 June 2012 was properly addressed by the post-trial agreement and the subsequent Staff Judge Advocate review. Relief denied.

Issue 4 : (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends his discharge wa s too harsh. Based on the Applicant’s record of service, the NDRB determined the Applicant ’s quality of service was honest and faithful but significant negative aspects of the member’s conduct or performance of duty outweighed the positive aspects of the member’s service record , and a General discharge was warranted. Therefore, the NDRB voted to upgrade the characterization of service to General (Under Honorable Conditions). Partial relief granted. Full relief was not granted, because the Applicant did commit misconduct.

Summary: After a careful review of the Applicant’s post-service documentation and official service records, and the facts and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found the discharge was proper but not equitable. The refore, the characterization of service shall change to but 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 P1900.16 F ), 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 92.

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 | 2009_Navy | ND0901806

Original file (ND0901806.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 | 2009_Navy | ND0900224

Original file (ND0900224.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 However, based on the Applicant’s in-service and post service performance, the awardedcharacterization of service shall 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...
USMC | DRB | 2000_Marine | MD00-00829

Original file (MD00-00829.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION 920501: Applicant, having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ, Art 27b, requested discharge for the good of the service to escape trial by court- martial. (Equity Issue) The applicant states that a disorder, exhibitionism, sufficiently mitigated his misconduct of record to warrant the Board’s relief.
USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0600717

Original file (MD0600717.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) and the Narrative Reason for Separation be changed to “ Voluntary Separation.” The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the Applicant’s service was discovered by...
USMC | DRB | 2015_Marine | MD1500327

Original file (MD1500327.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant’s record of service included 6105 counseling warnings, and for of the UCMJ: Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation; wrongfully consume alcohol under age 21), Article 129 (Burglary; unlawfully broke and entered barracks room of Cpl), and Article 134 (General article; 1 specification of indecent assault). 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...
USMC | DRB | 2001_Marine | MD01-01142

Original file (MD01-01142.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The NDRB also advised that the board first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. IT WAS ABUSE OF PROCESS TO CONVENE AN ADMINISTRATIVE DISCHARGE BOARD FOR THIS MATTER Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214 Brief from civilian counselNinety-six pages from applicant's service recordCopy of DD Form 149 with attachment (3 pages) PART II - SUMMARY OF...
USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0601073

Original file (MD0601073.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Elements of Discharge: [REQUESTED BY MEMBER] Discharge Process:Date Member Requested Separation:20010807Member Requested Separation Due To: Characterization Requested: member Recognized Least Favorable:Recommendation of Commanding Officer (date): , (UNDATED) SJA review (date): (20010813)Discharge directed by (date): COMMANDER, 2D MARINE AIRCRAFT WING, CHERRY POINT, NC (20010813)Narrative reason directed:IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT MARTIALCharacterization directed: Date Applicant...
NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900762

Original file (ND0900762.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Record Entries, Discharge Process and issues presented by the Applicant, the Board found ADDENDUM: Information for the Applicant Complaint Procedures : If you believe that 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...
USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1100066

Original file (MD1100066.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Additionally, the NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities. ” 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 | 2011_Marine | MD1100831

Original file (MD1100831.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Pre-Trial Agreement further stipulated that the charge would be adjudicated at a Regimental Commander’s Nonjudicial Punishment.On 10 March 2008, the Applicant was notified of the command’s intention to recommend that he be administratively separated from the Marine Corps pursuant to paragraph 6210.5 of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual (MARCORSEPMAN) - Misconduct (Drug Abuse). The Separation Authority approved the discharge on 09 April 2008, having determined that the...

Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2013_Marine | MD1300504

Similar Decisions