Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2013_Marine | MD1300871
Original file (MD1300871.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-, USMC
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20130308
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)       20070908 - 20070924     Active:  

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20070925     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Months
Date of Discharge: 20110924      H ighest Rank:
Length of Service : Y ea r ( s ) M on th ( s ) 00 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 36
MOS: 1142
Proficiency/Conduct M arks (# of occasions): ( ) / ( )    Fitness R eports:

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

Periods of UA / CONF :

NJP:

- 20100618 :       Article (Forgery - forged Battalion Commander’s signature on a driver’s permit )
         Awarded: Suspended:

- 20100721 :      Article (General A rticle , 2 specifications )
         Specification 1: Broke restriction by missing the 0600 restriction muster
         Specification 2: Broke restriction by not wearing uniform of the day at restriction muster check - in
          Awarded: Suspended: 5 days

- 20101203 :      Article (Forgery - deliberately forged the signature of a medical doctor on a government document for personal benefit)
         Awarded: Suspended:

SCM:     SPCM:    CC:

Retention Warning Counseling :

- 20091203 :       For violation of Article 92, MCBJ/III MEF Order 1050 7 Liberty Campaign Order and lack of integrity. Specifically , on 20091003 you participated in dr i fting on a track somewhere in the vicinity of Nago City, Okinawa. MCBJ/III MEF Order 1050 7 Liberty Campaign Order states, “Unsafe/Reckless driving, No SOFA status personnel will become involved as an active or passive participant (passenger or spectator) in any illegal street racing, drifting, speed competi ti on or motorcycle stunts in Japan or United States Government roadways” and that you lied to the Company First Sergeant about how you damaged the rear bumper of your car.


- 20100514 :       Concerning Marine Corps Tattoo Policy MARADMIN 029/10. I am granted the grandfather clause to this policy. My current tattoos are 1 my left lower arm has a 3 X 6, brass knuckle that I got on 20100423, 2 upper left arm has a 6 X 5 bloody heart that I got on 20091215, 3 Right leg has a 12 X 16 half sleeve of a Japanese dragon that I got on 20080905, 4 Chest has (2) 3 X 3 stars that I got on 2008104, 5 Left hip has a 5 X 3 grenade that I got on 20070323, 6 Right rib cage has a 12 X 5 bloody skull with quote that I got 20091226, 7 Right arm has a 9 X 6 quote with bloody skulls that I got on 20081220. I understand that Marines are prohibited from tattoos or brands on the head and neck. Sleeve tattoos are likewise prohibited. Half-sleeve or quarter sleeve tattoos that are visible to the eye when wearing standard PT gear are likewise prohibited.

- 20100618 :       For forgery. Specifically, on 20100616, you forged the signature of the Battalion Commander to receive driver’s permit.

- 20100721 :       For breaking restriction. Specifically, on 20100624 you broke restriction by checking in with Command Duty Officer at 0610 for your 0600 restriction muster. Additionally, when you did check in, you were not in the uniform of the day.

- 20101203 :       For violation of Article 123.

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. Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16F), effective 1 September 2001 until Present, Paragraph 1005, DISCHARGE FOR EXPIRATION OF ENLISTMENT OR FULFILLMENT OF SERVICE OBLIGATION .

 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 command told him his characterization of service would be upgraded six months after his discharge.
2 .       The Applicant contends he was told by his command that his final Proficiency (Pro) and Conduct (Con) marks would raise his enlistment averages to the minimum 4.5/4.5 required to receive an Honorable.
Decision

Date : 20 1 3 1114            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 sta ndards of equity and propriety. The Applicant’s record of service included 6105 counseling warnings and for o f the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 123 ( Forgery , 2 specifications) and Article 134 ( General A rticle , 2 specifications of breaking restriction order). The Applicant completed his required active service on 24 September 2011 and was discharged.

: (Nondecisional) The Applicant contends his command told him his characterization of service would be upgraded six months after his discharge. There is no law or regulation that authorizes a discharge to be automatically upgraded after six months. The NDRB does not automatically upgrade a discharge after six months or at any time after a service member’s discharge .
: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends he was told by his command that his final Pro and Con marks would raise his enlistment averages to the minimum 4.5/4.5 required to receive an Honorable. In accordance with Paragraph 1004 of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, an Honorable characterization of service upon the expiration of active duty is appropriate when the quality of a Marine’s service has met the standards of accepted conduct and performance of duty for military personnel. Therefore, characterization of service will be Honorable for Marines with average Proficiency marks of 3.0 or higher and average Conduct marks of 4.0 or higher. The Applicant completed his obligated service and his overall marks for proficiency and conduct were 4.2 and 4.0, respectively. The minimum marks to receive an Honorable are not 4.5/4.5 but rather are 3.0/4.0 . After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the NDRB discerned an inequity in the characterization of the Applicant’s service. The NDRB voted unanimously to upgrade the characterization of service to Honorable. 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 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 | 2015_Marine | MD1500638

    Original file (MD1500638.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 UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS and the narrative reason for separation shall remain MISCONDUCT. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application is received...

  • USMC | DRB | 2014_Marine | MD1401140

    Original file (MD1401140.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 , . 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 . ” Additional...

  • USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1001490

    Original file (MD1001490.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Given the unique circumstances involved in the Applicant’s individual case, the traumatic impact of documented, personalevents that occurred in Iraq, and the timing of the discharge in relation to the misconduct of record, the NDRB determined that the discharge, as awarded, was inequitable.In accordance with the MARCORSEPMAN, a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge is warranted when the quality of the member’s service has been honest and faithful, but significant negative aspects of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500089

    Original file (ND0500089.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION Such conduct falls far short of that expected of a member of the U.S. military and does not meet the requirements for an upgrade of his characterization of service.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1200209

    Original file (ND1200209.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 | MD1300640

    Original file (MD1300640.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    of controlled substances, to wit: THC 65 ng/mL) Sentence: SPCM: CC: Retention Warning Counseling: 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2014_Marine | MD1400370

    Original file (MD1400370.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 | 2002_Marine | MD02-01275

    Original file (MD02-01275.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Documentation In addition to the medical record, the Applicant submitted a copy of his Proficiency and conduct page from the service record. Relief not warranted.The Applicant is reminded that he remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received at the NDRB within 15 years from the date of his discharge.

  • USMC | DRB | 2007_Marine | MD0700070

    Original file (MD0700070.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After a thorough review of the Applicant’s record, issues submitted, and post service accomplishments, the Board determined that clemency was not warranted and that the sentence awarded the Applicant at his court-martial, as approved, was appropriate for the offenses he committed.In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of Government affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the Applicant. ...

  • USMC | DRB | 2013_Marine | MD1300934

    Original file (MD1300934.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. 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. Additionally, the NDRB has no authority to upgrade a...