Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2013_Marine | MD1301373
Original file (MD1301373.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-, USMC
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20130617
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)       20061204 - 20061226     Active:  

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20061227     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Months
Date of Discharge: 20111229      H ighest Rank:
Length of Service : Y ea rs M on ths 03 D a ys
Education Level:        AFQT: 62
MOS: 0351
Proficiency/Conduct M arks (# of occasions): ( ) / ( )    Fitness R eports:

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

Periods of CONF: 20101118 - 20110416, 150 days

NJP: NONE         SCM: NONE         CC: NONE

SPCM: 1

- 20110405 :       Art icle 121 (Larceny and wrongful appropriation , 3 specifications )
         Specification 1: On divers occasions, between on or about 20100 7 01 and 20101 019 , steal articles of woman’s clothing, of a value of less than $500 , the property of Seaman J_
         Specification 2: On divers occasions, between on or about 20100901 and 20101117, steal articles of woman’s clothing, of a value of less than $500, the property of M _
         Specification 3 : On or about 201011 08 , steal a laundry basket containing articles of wom en and children’ s clothing, of a value of less than $500, the property of R _
         Article 12 9 ( Burglary , 2 specifications )
         Specification 1: On divers occasions, between on or about 20100901 and 20101117, in nighttime, unlawfully break and enter the dwelling house of M_, with intent to commit larceny therein
         Specification 2: On or about 201011 08, in nighttime, unlawfully break and enter the dwelling house of R_, with intent to commit larceny therein
         Sentence : 270 days ( p ursuant to the pretrial agreement, confinement in excess of 180 days was suspended for six months)
        
Retention Warning Counseling: 2

- 20070521 :      For violating Article 91 , willfully disobeying an order from the Company First Sergeant that you will not take money for standing another Marine’s fire watch duties.

- 20070521:      For violating Article 9 2. SNM was caught playing PSP during the week after he’d been instructed not to .


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 1105, DISCHARGE ADJUDGED BY SENTENCE OF COURT-MARTIAL , 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 IV, Para 403m(7)(a), Presumption Concerning Court-Martial Specifications .

C . 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 seeks Department of Veterans Affairs ( VA ) medical treatment for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder ( PTSD ) caused by childhood sexual abuse and combat.
2.       The Applicant seeks to improve his employment opportunities.
 3.       The Applicant contends PTSD mitigates his misconduct and warrants clemency.
 4 .       The Applicant contends his combat service warrants clemency.

Decision

Date: 20 1 31219            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 PTSD, 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 deployment s to Iraq from February to August 2008 and to Afghanistan from May to November 2009 , conducting combat operations in support of Operation IRAQI FREEDOM and Operation ENDURING 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 NDRB 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. With respect to a discharge adjudged by a court-martial case, 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. In response to the Applicant’s clemency request, relevant and material facts stated in a court-martial specification are presumed by the NDRB to be established facts . The Applicant’s case was considered under the pertinent standards of equity to determine if any factors in this particular case merited clemency. The Applicant’s record of service included two 6105 counseling warnings and one S pecial C ourt- M artial for violations of the UCMJ: Article 121 (Larceny and wrongful appropriation , 3 specifications : Specification 1: On divers occasions, between on or about 20100701 and 20101019, steal articles of woman’s clothing, of a value of less than $500, the property of Seaman J_ , Specification 2: On divers occasions, between on or about 20100901 and 20101117, steal articles of woman’s clothing, of a value of less than $500, the property of M_ , and Specification 3: On or about 20101108, steal a laundry basket containing articles of women and children’s clothing, of a value of less than $500, the property of R_ ) and Article 129 (Burglary , 2 specifications : Specification 1: On divers occasions, between on or about 20100901 and 20101117, in nighttime, unlawfully break and enter the dwelling house of M_, with intent to commit larceny therein and Specification 2: On or about 20101108, in nighttime, unlawfully break and enter the dwelling house of R_, with intent to commit larceny therein ). The Applicant’s service record documents a punitive conviction and punishment, as adjudged by a Special Court-Martial, on 0 5 April 20 11 . A qualified legal defense counsel represented the Applicant throughout the trial by Special Court-Martial process. Given the facts of the case, the Special Court-Martial awarded the Applicant a Bad Conduct Discharge and confinement for a period of 270 days ( p ursuant to the pretrial agreement, confinement in excess of 180 days was suspended for six months) . The case was submitted for review to the U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals; it was reviewed and the findings were affirmed on 28 Dec ember 20 1 1. Subsequently, the Navy Marine Corps Appellate Leave Activity ordered the Bad Conduct Discharge executed.

: (Nondecisional) The Applicant seeks VA medical treatment for PTSD caused by childhood sexual abuse and combat. 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.

: (Nondecisional) The Applicant seeks to improve his employment 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 whether clemency is warranted for a punitive discharge.

Issue 3 : (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends PTSD mitigates his misconduct and warrants clemency. The Applicant further contends that the trauma of war may have been a triggering event to act out once he returned from his second deployment. Though the Applicant may feel that PTSD was the underlying cause of his misconduct, the record reflects the Applicant displayed willful and persistent misconduct by breaking and entering dwellings and stealing articles of women’s clothing on multiple occasions . T he evidence of record and the evidence provided by the Applicant does not show that the Applicant was either not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions. In addition, the record of trial clearly shows that both the military judge and the Separation Authority were aware of the Applicant’s childhood sexual abuse and his combat experience before they determined he should be held accountable for his actions. After an exhaustive review, the NDRB determined PTSD did not mitigate the Applicant’s misconduct. Clemency denied.
Issue 4: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends his combat service warrants clemency. Based on the Applicant’s record of service , to include two combat tours and the record of the S pecial C ourt- M artial , the NDRB determined the Applicant engaged in misconduct that warranted a punitive discharge. The record of trial clearly shows that both the military judge and the Separation Authority were aware of the Applicant’s combat experience . After a thorough review of the records, t he NDRB determined clemency was not warranted. Clemency denied.

Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entries, the record of trial by Special Court-Martial, and discharge process, the Board found that clemency was not warranted. 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

  • AF | DRB | CY2003 | FD2003-00342

    Original file (FD2003-00342.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    CONCLUSIONS: The Discharge Review Board concludes that the applicant’s punitive discharge by Special Court Martial was appropriate under the facts and circumstances of this case and there is insufficient basis as an act of clemency for change of discharge. Finding: Not Guilty, but Guilty of Violation of Article 130. 4 at Minot Air Force Base, North Dakota, on or about 17 Specification: Did, June 1989, in the nighttime.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01018

    Original file (ND02-01018.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214 Applicant's letter to the Board, dtd Oct 15, 2001 Applicant's spouse, E_ A. L_, letter to the Board, dtd Oct 29, 2001 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: USNR (DEP) 860826 - 870705 COG Active: USN 870706 - 940116 HON Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 940117*...

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0902349

    Original file (MD0902349.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. The Applicant should be aware submission of these items alone does not guarantee clemency as each discharge is reviewed by the NDRB on a case-by-case basis.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 BAD...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090016469

    Original file (20090016469.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    e. Additional Charge II, Article 134, Plea: Not Guilty. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. The evidence of record does show the applicant was convicted by a GCM and he received a BCD.

  • USMC | DRB | 2002_Marine | MD02-00466

    Original file (MD02-00466.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:Letter from Applicant's Mother (5pgs)Copy of Envelope dated Feb 2001 sent to J_ W. D_Copy of Applicant's Birth Certificate Copy of DD Form 214 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: USMC None Inactive: USMCR(J) 950606 - 960122 COG Period of Service Under...

  • AF | DRB | CY2001 | FD01-00017

    Original file (FD01-00017.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE I CASENUMBER FD-0 1 -000 17 GENERAL: The applicant appealed for upgrade of his discharge frombailreofiduct to h6-k applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), without counsel, at Andrews AFB, MD, on April 5,2001. Issue 2 : At the time of my court martial, the Base Commander was more likely to approve a "bad conduct" discharge or worse then receive approve lesser punishment. Issue 3: Out of the eight Air...

  • USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0500957

    Original file (MD0500957.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    What I did to cause me to receive a Bad Conduct discharge I truly with all my heart regret y action.Now that I have been released from the Military Appellate Leave Status an been given a new chance to start my career over I respectfully request that my Bad Conduct Discharge be changed to General/under Honorable condition. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant’s DD Form 214 (3) PART II -...

  • 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 | 2014_Marine | MD1400859

    Original file (MD1400859.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Relief denied.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, service record entries, and discharge process, the Board found clemency was not warranted. ” 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02113

    Original file (BC-2005-02113.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-02113 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 9 JAN 07 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His bad conduct discharge (BCD) discharge be upgraded to a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. On 17 August 1977, the applicant was convicted by a general court-martial for the...