Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2013_Marine | MD1301213
Original file (MD1301213.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-, USMC
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20130514
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)       19961126 - 19970223     Active:  

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 19970224     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Months
Date of Discharge: 19990120      H ighest Rank:
Length of Service : Y ea r ( s ) M on th ( s ) 27 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 64
MOS: 6531
Proficiency/Conduct M arks (# of occasions): ( ) / ( )    Fitness R eports:

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      NONE

NJP:

- 19980303 :       Article (Absence without leave, 0200-0530, 19980207)
         Article (Failure to obey order or regulation)
         Article 123a (Making, drawing, or uttering check, draft, or order without sufficient funds)
         Awarded: Suspended:

- 19980611 :      Article (Absence without leave , 2 specifications )
         Specification 1: From barrack area 19980528-19980529, due to a sick - in - quarters order
         Specification 2: Failed to report to duty 0710, 19980531
         Article (Failure to obey order or regulation)
         Awarded: CC U 26 days Suspended:

SCM:     CC:

SPCM:

- 19981029 :       Art icle (Absence without leave , 2 specifications )
         Specification 1: 19980809 -19980812, 3 days
         Specification 2: 19980824-19980922, 30 days
          Art icle (Missing movement , 19980824 )
         Sentence : CHL 90 days

Retention Warning Counseling :

- 19971224 :       For not paying your legal debts in a timely manner.



- 19980113 :       For not paying your legal debts in a timely manner. This command has received notification from MWR that you are d elinquent in paying your account.

- 19980220:      For writing checks with insufficient funds and going from your appointed place of duty. You are in debt to MWR Activity 0140, Camp Pendleton for the amount of $413.88 due to dishonored checks and service charges. On 19980207, at approximately 0200 while you were standing ADNCO at the FREST Barracks you were told by the SDNCO to tour the barracks. While touring the barracks , you fell asleep and did not return to your post until 0530.

- 19980326 :      For your debt to Sprint Telephone Company for $1675.35 and a fellow Marine. To this date you have made no effort to re-pay either of these amounts. Sprint has since turned your account over to a Collection Ag ency.

- 19980815:      For continued pattern of misconduct. On 19980611 you were subject to squadron Commanding Officer ’ s NJP for violation of Articles 86 and 92 , then on 19980808 , you failed to report back from leave.

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 P1900.16E), effective 31 January 1997 until 31 August 2001.

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 the judge at his Special Court-Martial stated that he deserved the right to earn his Honorable discharge, but his command thought otherwise and discharged him Under Other Than Honorable Conditions.  

Decision

 Date: 20 1 4 0 109            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, 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 , 2 specifications ) , and Article 123a ( Making, drawing, or uttering check, draft, or order without sufficient funds , 1 specification ) , and for of the UCMJ: Article 86 (Absence without leave, 2 specifications ) and Article 87 (Failure to obey order or regulation, 1 specification) . 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.

Issue 1 : (Decisional) (Propriety/Equity) RELIEF NOT WARRANTED. The Applicant contends the judge at his Special Court-Martial stated that he deserved the right to earn his Honorable discharge, but his command thought otherwise and discharged him Under Other Than Honorable Conditions. The judge may have said that, but he did not have the authority to direct that the Applicant’s unit retain him. The judge’s authority rested solely with whether or not the Applicant was guilty of the charges brought before him and whether he would award a punitive discharge (i.e., Bad Conduct). The judge found the Applicant guilty but determined not to award a punitive discharge, and the Applicant was properly returned to his unit. The Applicant’s commanding officer determined, based upon the Applicant’s frequent and serious misconduct in less than two years of service, that he was no longer fit to serve and initiated administrative separation proceedings that eventually resulted in his discharge Under Other Than Honorable Conditions for a Pattern of Misconduct. After a complete review of the records, the NDRB determined 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 . Since 15 years have elapsed since the date of his discharge, the Applicant is not eligible for a personal appearance hearing. The Applicant may petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records, 701 South Courthouse Road, Suite 1001, Arlington, VA 22204-2490 for further review using DD Form 149. Their website can be found at http://www.donhq.navy.mil/bcnr/bcnr.htm.


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 | 2011_Marine | MD1100173

    Original file (MD1100173.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Court of Appeals Review - Decision dated 30 October 2006; the finding as to the Additional Charge I and its sole specification (Article 80 - Attempts) is set aside. After a thorough review of the Applicant’s record and the issues as submitted, the NDRB determined that clemency was not warranted and that the sentence awarded the Applicant at her court-martial was appropriate.Accordingly, clemency, as requested, is denied. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted,...

  • USMC | DRB | 1999_Marine | MD99-00930

    Original file (MD99-00930.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD99-00930 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 990630, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. History Iwas accused and convicted, at Office Hours, of Article 123a - Making, drawing, or uttering check, draft, or order without sufficient funds.While serving my punishment two (2) days later, I was charged with Article 90 - Willfully disobeying an order. Not appealed.910919: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 90:...

  • USMC | DRB | 2002_Marine | MD02-01210

    Original file (MD02-01210.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD02-01210 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020819, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION 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.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501284

    Original file (ND0501284.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant’s DD Form 214 (4) PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: USNR (DEP) 19840918 – 19850113 COG Active: USN 19850114 – 19891005 HON Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 19891006 Date of Discharge: 19931013 Length of Service (years,...

  • USMC | DRB | 2002_Marine | MD02-01318

    Original file (MD02-01318.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD02-01318 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020910, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, NDRB discerned no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the Applicant’s service. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant,...

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0900212

    Original file (MD0900212.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant is advised that completion of these items alone does not guarantee clemency will be granted, as each discharge is reviewed by the Board on a case by case basis to determine if post service conduct justifies clemency. The Board determined the characterization of service received, “Bad Conduct Discharge”, was an appropriate characterization considering the length of service and the UCMJ violations involved, and based on the lack of post service documentation provided, clemency...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600165

    Original file (ND0600165.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND06-00165 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20051103. After returning from treatment, the member states she did not gamble at all for nearly 9 months, and then in July 01, she began to gamble excessively again. Relief denied.The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of discharge.

  • USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1002044

    Original file (MD1002044.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant’s service record documents that he completed the adjudicated period of confinement as awarded by the Special Court-Martial sentence. On 14 May 1996, the Applicant submitted a request for clemency to the Convening Authority; on 19 August, the Convening Authority acted on the request for clemency and reduced the sentence of confinement for six years to a period of four years. Having conducted a detailed review of both the records of trial by Special and by General Court-Martial...

  • USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1000733

    Original file (MD1000733.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The NDRB determined that clemency was in order. ” 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. 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2013_Marine | MD1300118

    Original file (MD1300118.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...