Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2013_Marine | MD1301459
Original file (MD1301459.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-, USMC
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20130710
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)                Active:  

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 19970610     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Months
Date of Discharge: 20020627      H ighest Rank:
Length of Service : Y ea r ( s ) M on th ( s ) 18 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 31
MOS: 3502
Proficiency/Conduct M arks (# of occasions): ( ) / ( )    Fitness R eports:

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

Periods of CONF : 20000620-20001020, 121 days; 20001030-20001031, 2 days

 Periods of UA :

NJP:     SCM:              CC:      Retention Warning Counseling :

SPCM:

- 20000620 :       Article (Conspiracy; d id on board Marine Corps Base, Cam p Lejeune, North Carolina, between on or about 19990915 and on or about 19991031, conspired with another Marine , planned the intentional arson of his vehicle and subsequent report of his vehicle stolen , then filed an insurance claim with United Services Automobile Association )
         Art icle (False official statements; d id on board Marine Corps Base, Cam p Lejeune, North
Carolina , on or about 19991031, with the intent to deceive, make to a Special Agent, an official statement, to wit: “I hereby swear or affirm that I have not loaned, rented or otherwise authorized any person(s) to use or operate my vehicle; that I have provided all facts known by myself concerning my car’s disappearance and to my knowledge it was stolen from a military reservation , ” which statement was false in that he did authorize another Marine to drive his car to South Carolina and well knew that his vehicle had not been stolen)
         Article ( General A rticle, w illfully and maliciously burn an automobile; did, at Hopkins, South Carolina on or about 19991029, will fu lly and maliciously burn an automobile, owned by him, with the intent to defraud the insurer: United Services Automobile Asso ciation)
         Sentence : (2000620 - 20001020; 121 days)






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 to improve his employment opportunities.
2.       The Applicant contends his punishment was harsh for a first-time offense where no one was hurt and no government property was destroyed.
 3 .       The Applicant contends his post-service conduct warrants clemency.

Decision

Date: 20140212            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. 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 for of the UCMJ: Article 81 (Conspiracy ) , Article 107 (False official statements ), and Article 134 ( General Article, w illfully and maliciously burn an automobile ). The Applicant was convicted at a Special Court-Martial a nd was separated from the Marine Corps with a Bad Conduct D ischarge.
: (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 the propriety and equity of the discharge.

Issue 2: (Decisional) (Clemency) RELIEF NOT WARRANTED. The Applicant contends his punishment was harsh for a first-time offense where no one was hurt and no government property was destroyed. 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 NDRB found the evidence of record did not contain sufficient mitigating or extenuating factors to offset the seriousness of the offenses for which the discharge was awarded. Relief denied.
: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends his post-service conduct warrants clemency. 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, college diploma , college transcripts, background check , and on e 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 NDRB determined the Applicant’s post-service effort s do not warrant clemency. Clemency denied.

Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include his summary of service, record entries, and discharge process, the Board found Therefore, the characterization of service shall and the narrative reason for separation shall remain . The Applicant remains eligible for a hearing for 15 years from the date of discharge. The Applicant is directed to the Addendum .


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 | MD1100687

    Original file (MD1100687.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. Partial relief warranted.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 the discharge was proper but not equitable. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the...

  • USMC | DRB | 2015_Marine | MD1500248

    Original file (MD1500248.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’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 remain BAD CONDUCT DISCHARGE and the narrative reason for separation shall remain COURT-MARTIAL. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900180

    Original file (ND0900180.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant contends he is entitled to clemency because the punishment adjudged was too harsh for his misconduct. The NDRB determined the awarded discharge characterization was within the parameters established by the Navy for the Article 86 violation in question and clemency was not warranted.After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Service and Medical Record Entries, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2015_Navy | ND1401236

    Original file (ND1401236.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    An Administrative Board convened and, after hearing all the testimony and evidence in the Applicant’s case, determined by a 3-0 vote that the Applicant should be discharged from the Navy with an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1000797

    Original file (ND1000797.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 Applicant: From/To Representation: From/To Congress member: Pertinent Regulation/Law A. ” Additional Reviews :...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0601133

    Original file (ND0601133.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Elements of Discharge: [INVOLUNTARY] Date Notified:20000620Reason for Discharge due to: Least Favorable Characterization: Date Applicant Responded to Notification: 20000620Rights Elected at Notification:Consult with Counsel Administrative Board Obtain Copies Submit Statement(s) (date)Recommendation of Commanding Officer (date): (20000627)Separation Authority (date):COMMANDER, NAVAL TRAINING CENTER, GREAT LAKES (20000705)Narrative reason directed:Characterization directed: Date Applicant...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100027350

    Original file (20100027350.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    c. He was convicted by a court-martial and sentenced to confinement. The applicant provides: * General Court-Martial Order Number 4, dated 15 May 2008 * U.S. Military Court of Criminal Appeals notice and decision * U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces order * General Court-Martial Order 258, dated 20 November 2008 * DD Form 2707 (Confinement Order) * DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action - Duty Status) * DA Form 268 (Report to Suspend Favorable Personnel Actions (FLAG)) * DA Form 4430...

  • USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1100685

    Original file (MD1100685.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to: Narrative Reason change to:DISCRETION OF THE NDRB Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive:NONE Active:NONE Period of Service Under Review: Date of Current Enlistment: 19980618Age at Enlistment: Period of Enlistment: Years Months [6x2 ROEP]Date of Discharge:20050414Highest Rank:Length of Service:Inactive: Year(s)Month(s)04 Day(s)Active: Year(s)Month(s)00 Day(s) Appellate Leave: Year(s)Month(s)23 Day(s)Education Level: AFQT:64MOS:...

  • USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1002323

    Original file (MD1002323.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 Applicant: From/To Representation:From/ToCongress member: Pertinent Regulation/Law A. Paragraph 1105, DISCHARGE...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600598

    Original file (ND0600598.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant’s service was marred by nonjudicial punishment for failing to go to his appointed place of duty due to a prior overindulgence of alcohol, attempting to steal merchandise from a vending machine, and failing to report a fellow Sailor’s theft of, and damage to, an automobile, in violation of Articles 80, 86 and 92 of the UCMJ; an administrative discharge board recommendation for separation with a characterization of service as under other than honorable conditions; his admission...