Upgrade.Vet

USMC | DRB | 2013_Marine | MD1300550

Original file (MD1300550.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-, USMC

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20130116

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)       20070702 - 20071022     Active:

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20071023     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Months
Date of Discharge: 20110701      H ighest Rank:
Length of Service : Y ea r ( s ) M on th ( s ) 09 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 35
MOS: 0311
Proficiency/Conduct M arks (# of occasions): ( ) / ( )    Fitness R eports:

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

Periods of UA :

NJP:

- 20090702 :       Article (Larceny and wrongful appropriation , did at AAFES, main side PX, Camp Al Taqadum, Iraq, on or about 20090623 wrongfully appropriate a pair of Oakley/St Ballistic M frame lens of about $110.00 the pr operty of AAFES, main side PX)
         Awarded: Suspended:

- 20110104 :      Article (Failure to obey order or regulation, having knowledge of a lawful order issued by the Battalion Commander to not consume alcohol on class C liberty risk, an order which it was his to obey, did, at Camp Hansen, Okinawa, Japan, on or about 20101228, fail to obey the same by wrongfully consuming alcohol on class C liberty risk)
         Article (General A rticle, on or about 20101228, drunk and disorderly which conduct was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces)
         Awarded: Suspended:

SCM:

- 20100729 :       Art icle (Larceny and wrongful appropriation )
         Sentence : (20100729-20100821, 24 days)

SPCM:    CC:

Retention Warning Counseling :

- 20100708 :       For violation of Article 134 , straggling, in that SNM did on or about 20100702/0630 fail to maintain appropriate physical conditioning as set by the Marine Corps by not completing a Battalion 2.5 mile run.

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 A pplicant seeks medical benefits for Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), back, knee, heel, shoulder, eyes, and short-term memory loss.
Decision

Date : 20 1 3 1001 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 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 Applicant’s service record documents completion of a deployment in the Al-Anbar Province of Iraq in 2009 in support of Operation IRAQI FREEDOM.

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 did not identify any decisional issues to the Board. However, the Board did complete a thorough review of the circumstances that led to discharge and the discharge process to ensure discharge met the pertinent sta ndards of equity and propriety. The Applicant’s record of service included 6105 counseling warning, for o f the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article (Failure to obey order or regulation, having knowledge of a lawful order issued by the Battalion Commander to not consume alcohol on class C liberty risk, an order which it was his to obey, did, at Camp Hansen, Okinawa, Japan, on or about 20101228, fail to obey the same by wrongfully consuming alcohol on class C liberty risk) , Article (Larceny and wrongful appropriation, wrongfully appropriate a pair of Oakley/St Ballistic M frame lens of about $110.00) , and Article (General A rticle, drunk and disorderly) , and for of the UCMJ: Article (Larceny and wrongful appropriation) . Based on the offenses committed by the Applicant, command administratively processed for separation. The NDRB did not have the Applicant’s administrative separation package to determine whether or not the Applicant waived rights to consult with a qualified counsel, submit a written statement, and request an administrative board or a General Court-Martial Convening Authority review . However, the Applicant has a separation code of HKA1 on his DD Form 214, which indicates he waived his right to appear before an administrative board.

: (Nondecisional) The Applicant seeks medical benefits for TBI, back, knee, heel, shoulder, eyes, and short-term memory loss. 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.

During the Applicant’s three years and eight months of service, he received one retention warning and was found guilty at two NJPs and one Summary Court-Martial of violating several UCMJ articles. Per the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, he met the requirements for administrative separation for a Pattern of Misconduct. The Applicant’s medical record reveals that his head injury resulted from playing football in 29 Palms, CA on 20 October 2009. T he NDRB determined TBI did not mitig ate the Applicant’s misconduct , and his discharge was warranted, proper, and equitable . 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 | 2005_Marine | MD0501221

Original file (MD0501221.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). ), necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided.011120: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Specification 1: In that PFC G_ H. B_ (Applicant), did, on board Camp Hansen, Okinawa Japan, on or about 0230, 2 November 2001, failed to obey a lawful general order, to wit: by wrongfully consuming alcohol under the legal...
USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0500550

Original file (MD0500550.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION Not appealed.040310: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.040414: Applicant advised of rights and having elected to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights except the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation.040420: Commanding Officer, H&S...
USMC | DRB | 2002_Marine | MD02-00462

Original file (MD02-00462.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. Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.980921: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Having knowledge of a lawful order issued by the Battalion Commander and signed by SNM, to refrain from alcoholic beverages, and order in which it was his duty to obey, did, on board Camp...
USMC | DRB | 2012_Marine | MD1201432

Original file (MD1201432.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant could have provided additional documentation as detailed in the Post-Service Conduct paragraph in the Addendum , however, 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. Relief denied.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s...
USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1001819

Original file (MD1001819.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The command opted to prefer the new charges of misconduct to trial by special court-martial.The stated misconduct resulted in the special court-martial awarding a punitive Bad Conduct Dischargeand confinement for 6 months.The NDRB recognizes that many of our service members are young at the time they enlist for service, however, most manage to serve their enlistment honorably. Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record...
USMC | DRB | 2013_Marine | MD1300413

Original file (MD1300413.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 | 2014_Marine | MD1400863

Original file (MD1400863.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

After an exhaustive review, including the five character references provided by the Applicant, the NDRB determined PTSD and TBI did not mitigate his misconduct, and his discharge was proper and equitable. ” 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...
USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0500850

Original file (MD0500850.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Violation of UCMJ Article 91: Specification: In that Lance Corporal M_ (Applicant) with 3rd Intelligence Battalion, III MHG, III MEF, having received a lawful order from Sergeant T_, a noncommissioned officer, to report to Sgt J_, an order which it was his duty to obey, did on board Camp Hansen, willfully disobey the same. Charge I: violation of the UCMJ, Article 107 (2 Specs): Specification 1: In that Private D_ D. M_ (Applicant), U. S. Marine Corps, 3d Intelligence Battalion, III Marine...
USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0900739

Original file (MD0900739.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

In all the documentation provided by the father and in reviewing the Applicant’s record of service, the NDRB found no evidence of recruiter misconduct. 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 previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member’s overall...
USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0601075

Original file (MD0601075.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-PFC, USMCMD06-01075Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request: Application Received: 20060808Narrative Reason for Separation: MISCONDUCTCharacter of Service:Discharge Authority: MARCORSEPMAN 6210.3Last Duty Assignment/Command at Discharge: mwss 172 mwsg 17 1stmaw okinawa jaApplicant’s Request:Narrative Reason change to: NONE REQUESTEDCharacterization change to:Review Requested:Representation: Decision: Date of Decision:20070628Location of Board: Washington D.C.Complete Service...

Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2013_Marine | MD1300550

Similar Decisions