Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2013_Marine | MD1300934
Original file (MD1300934.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-, USMC
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20130405
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)       20091102 - 20091213     Active:  

Period of Service Under Review:
 Date of Current Enlistment: 20091214     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Months
Date of Discharge: 20110921      H ighest Rank:
Length of Service : Y ea r ( s ) M on th ( s ) 08 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 70
MOS: 2311
Proficiency/Conduct M arks (# of occasions): ( ) / ( )    Fitness Reports:

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      Rifle LoA

Periods of CONF :

NJP:

- 20100603 :      Article (Absence without leave)
         Article (Failure to obey order or regulation)
         Awarded: Suspended:

- 20101124 :      Article (Absence without leave)
         Article (Failure to obey order or regulation)
         Article 112 (Drunk on duty)
         Awarded: Suspended:

- 20110124 :      Article (Insubordinate conduct toward a warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer)
         Article (Failure to obey order or regulation)
         Article (False official statements)
         Article (Assault)
          Awarded: Suspended:

SCM:     SPCM:    CC:

Retention Warning Counseling:

- 20100603 :      For unauthorized absence, failure to obey an order or regulation, specifically on 20100529 you left Redstone Arsenal after the 2359 accountability formation, while on academic restriction, and were discovered by his PLT Sgt and the OOD at the La Quinta Inn at 0300. This conduct is in direct violation of the Commanding Officer’s policy letter (subparagraph 4) dated 20091112 signed by you on 20100423.


- 20101203 :      For violatio n of Articles 86, 92, and 112.

- 20110124 :      For violation of Articles 91, 92, 107, and 128 in that on 20110102 you became insubordinate and abusive to the ADNCO and DNCO when they tried to return you to your room after you had been drinking at the enlisted club while on the alcohol rehabilitation program and made a false official statement on 20110104 to two Gunny Sergeants in regards to the event.

- 20110701 :      For violation of Article 92. Specifically on 20110617 you wrongfully consumed alcohol while assigned to the Liberty Risk Program. Additionally, you willfully disobeyed a written order from the Battalion Commander in accordance with MCBJ HIMEFO 1050.7 CH1-3 LIBERTY CAMPAIGN ORDER.

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:                  Other Documentation:    
                  Additional Statements:
         From Applicant:           From/To Representation:           From/To Congress member:        

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 post-service conduct warrants an upgrade to Honorable.
 2.       The Applicant contends his disciplinary problems were the result of unfair treatment by his command, isolation from his family and friends on Okinawa, and alcohol consumption.
3.       The Applicant contend s he was discharged after he was prevented from finishing alcohol rehabilitation treatment when he refused to sign a document that said he was an alcoholic .

Decision

Date: 20 1 3 1121            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 6105 counseling warnings and for o f the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 86 ( Absence without leave , 2 specifications ), Article 91 ( Insubordinate conduct toward a warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer, 1 specification), Article 92 ( Failure to obey order or regulation , 3 specifications ) , Article 107 (False official statements, 1 specification), Article 112 (Drunk on duty, 1 specification), and Article 128 (Assault, 1 specification) . Based on the offenses 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 and request an administrative board. T he Applicant ex er cis ed right to submit a written statement .

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends his post-service conduct warrants consideration for an upgrade to Honorable. 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 one character reference . The Applicant could have provided 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. The Board determined that 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.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends his disciplinary problems were the result of unfair treatment by his command, isolation from his family and friends on Okinawa, and alcohol consumption. T he NDRB recognizes that serving in the military is challenging. Most servicemembers, however, serve honorably and therefore earn their Honorable discharges. In fairness to those servicemembers, commanders and separation authorities are tasked to ensure that undeserving Marine s receive no higher characterization than is due. There is no evidence in the record, nor did the Applicant provide any documentation, to indicate he attempted to use the numerous services available for servicemembers who undergo personal problems during their enlistment s , such as the Navy Chaplain, Mental Health professionals, Navy Relief Society, Family Advocacy Programs, or even the Red Cross. Also, there is nothing in the record to show that the Applicant was treated unfairly by his command. Quite the contrary, his command gave him multiple opportunities to correct his poor behavior. However, after three NJPs and four retention warnings, his command determined he was no longer fit to serve and processed him for an administrative separation. Finally, a lcohol consumption is never a rationale or an acceptable excuse for inappropriate conduct, misconduct, or poor judgment. The NDRB determined his discharge was proper and equitable. Relief denied.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends he was discharged after he was prevented from finishing alcohol rehabilitation treatment when he refused to sign a document that said he was an alcoholic. The Applicant was not discharged for Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure but was discharged for a Pattern of Misconduct after receiving four retention warnings and being found guilty at three NJPs for violating numerous UCMJ articles. There is nothing in the Applicant’s records to show that he was not responsible for his actions or should not be held accountable for his misconduct. 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 | MD1300873

    Original file (MD1300873.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    There is no indication in the evidence of record or in the documentation submitted by the Applicant’s mother that the Applicant was recommended for or processed for a medical board by proper authority. The NDRB determined his command did not purposely hold his administrative separation board before his civilian court date, and the Applicant received full due process during the administrative proceedings. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are...

  • USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1100574

    Original file (MD1100574.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant was notified - in writing - of the Command’s intent to process him for administrative separation due to Misconduct (Drug Abuse) in accordance with paragraph 6210.5 of the MARCORSEPMAN - with a recommendation for characterization of service as Under Other Than Honorable Conditions. Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, service record entries, and the discharge process, the NDRB determined that Therefore, the...

  • USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1100678

    Original file (MD1100678.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT Applicant’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 and the narrative reason for separation shall .The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing for a period of fifteen years from the date of...

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0902484

    Original file (MD0902484.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The General Court Martial Convening Authority affirmed all three reasons for separation, directed a characterization of service of Under Other than Honorable Conditions due to significant negative aspects of conduct, and further directed that the primary basis for separation reporting was Misconduct, Due to a Pattern of Misconduct. The evidence of record does not demonstrate the Applicant was not responsible for his conduct, or that he should not be held accountable for his actions.By a...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2014_Navy | ND1401185

    Original file (ND1401185.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. There is no requirement or law that grants recharacterization solely on the issue of obtaining veterans benefits and this issue does not serve to...

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0902583

    Original file (MD0902583.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. 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 . ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are...

  • USMC | DRB | 2014_Marine | MD1401044

    Original file (MD1401044.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 15 November 2012, an Administrative Separation Board determined that a preponderance of evidence proved the Applicant’s misconduct, and recommended by 3-0 vote that the Applicant be administratively separated from the Marine Corps with Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge. ” 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 | 2010_Marine | MD1001525

    Original file (MD1001525.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. An Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge is warranted when a member engages in conduct involving one or more acts or omissions that constitute a significant departure from the conduct expected of members of the Naval Service.The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of service, reflects the Applicant failed to meet the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1101605

    Original file (ND1101605.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant seeks an upgrade in order to receive health benefits. ” 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. A request for a waiver can be submitted during the processing of a formal...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700214

    Original file (ND0700214.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant’s service was marred by four nonjudicial punishments and two retention warning for violations of UCMJ Articles 86 (unauthorized absence, 6 specifications), 87 (missing movement), 90 (willfully disobeying a superior commissioned officer), 91 (insubordinate conduct, 2 specifications), 92 (failure to obey, 3 specifications), 107 (false official statements), 111 (drunk operation of a motor vehicle), 112 (drunk on watch), and 134 (disorderly conduct and communicating a threat). ...