Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2013_Marine | MD1301701
Original file (MD1301701.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-, USMC
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20130807
Characterization of Service Received:
Narrative Reason for Discharge:
Authority for Discharge: MARCORSEPMAN

Applicant’s Request:      Characterization change to: or
         Narrative Reason change to:

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive:         USMCR (DEP)       20041208 - 20050822     Active:  

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20050823     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Months
Date of Discharge: 20081031      H ighest Rank:
Length of Service : Y ea r ( s ) M on th ( s ) 09 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 57
MOS: 6276
Proficiency/Conduct M arks (# of occasions): / ( )       Fitness R eports:

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      Rifle Pistol

Periods of UA / CONF :

NJP:

- 20060824 :       Article (Absence without leave)
         Article (Failure to obey order or regulation , 2 specifications )
         Article (False official statements)
         Awarded: Suspended:

- 20080721 :      Article (General A rticle; disorderly conduct, drunkenness )
         Awarded: Suspended:

SCM:     SPCM:

CC:

- 20080721 :       Offense: Domestic violence
         Sentence : (2) days in jail [Extracted from Commanding Officer, Marine Aerial Refueler Transportation Squadron 252, Administrative Separation Interview]

Retention Warning Counseling :

- 20060824 :       For poor judgment, failure to follow rules and regulations , and unauthorized absence

- 20070724 :       For a domestic altercation

- 20080610 :       For a domestic altercation


- 20080709 :       For lack of judgment

- 20080721 :       For nonjudicial punishment proceedings concerning your violation of A rticle 134

- 20080825 :       For a domestic altercation that took place between you and your wife on 03 January 2008 and 04 January 2008

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

The NDRB did note administrative error(s) on the original DD Form 214:

          “ 2005 08 23 ”
         “ ”

The NDRB will recommend to the Commandant of the Marine Corps , MMSB-13, that the DD 214 be corrected as appropriate.
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 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 he was not given adequate time to rehabilitate himself.
2.       The Applicant contends his Commanding Officer at the time of his administrative separation was different than his Commanding Officer at the time of his documented misconduct .
3.       The Applicant contends his in-service conduct warrants an upgrade .

Decision

Date: 20 1 4 0403            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. The 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, for o f the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ ): Article 86 ( Absence without leave ) , Article 92 ( Failure to obey order or regulation , 2 specific ation s), Article 107 (False official statements), and Article 134 ( General A rticle, disorderly conduct, drunkenness ) , and on e civil arrest and conviction for domestic violence. Additionally , the Applicant was determined to be the princip a l offender in two domestic violence events by the base Family Advocacy Program Case Review Committee . Based on the offenses committed by the Applicant, command administratively processed for separation. When notifi ed of a dministrative separation processing using the procedure, the Applicant rights to consult with a qualified counsel and submit a written statement but waived his right to request an administrative board .

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends he was not given adequate time to rehabilitate himself. The Applicant’s record of service clearly delineates several rehabilitative opportunities throughout his service. It should be noted that the purpose of any rehabilitative treatment offered in service is not to rehabilitate a service member for further service but rather to provide treatment before separation. With respect to the l ast rehabilitation program the Applicant is referring to on his application to the NDRB, the NDRB noted he continued to have misconduct during the course of t his treatment as well as being found guilty at the completion of civil legal proceedings . With respect to a Pattern of Misconduct, the Applicant met the requirements to be discharged for this basis in July 2007, yet his command continued to give him additional opportunities to correct his poor behavior. Despite being given multiple opportunities, the Applicant continued to commit misconduct and warranted an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge. The NDRB determined his command followed the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual and properly discharged him. Relief denied.

 : (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends his Commanding Officer at the time of his administrative separation was different than his Commanding Officer at the time of his documented misconduct . For administrative discharge processing , documented misconduct is cumulative for each period of enlistment and is not dependent on the continuity of individuals in command. The member was administratively separated according to the applicable references for his demonstrated pattern of misconduct. In order to be administratively separated for a pattern of misconduct , a minimum of TWO incidents occurring within one enlistment is required. The infractions may be minor or more serious. There must be discreditable involvement with civil or military authorities or conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline. The misconduct need not have been the subject of NJP or military or civilian conviction. The incidents of misconduct do not have to be of the same nature. The NDRB found his discharge to be proper. Relief denied.




: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends his in-service conduct warrants an upgrade to Honorable . During the Applicant’s 3 years and 2 months of service, he received six retention warning counselings, was found guilty at two NJPs for several serious UCMJ violations, was s ubject to two F amily A dvocacy C ase R eview C ommittee decisions where he was found as the principal offender in domestic violence incidents, and had one civil arrest and conviction for domestic violence in Tiffin, Ohio. As a result of his significant and repetitive misconduct, he met the requirements to be administratively separated for Misconduct (Serious Offense), Misconduct (Pattern of Misconduct), and Misconduct (Civil Conviction). Since t he Applicant was administratively separated and not separated upon expiration of enlistment or fulfillment of service obligation , t he characterization of service is determined by the quality of the member’s total performance of duty and conduct during the current enlistment, including the reason for separation. Other considerations shall be given to the member’s length of service, grade, aptitude, and physical and mental condition. Based on the Applicant’s record of service, and despite his above average performance while on duty, the NDRB determined the Applicant engaged in conduct involving one or more acts or omissions that constituted a significant departure from the conduct expected of members of the Naval Service, and the awarded characterization of service was warranted. 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

  • NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1100343

    Original file (ND1100343.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Based on the offense committed by the Applicant, his command administratively processed him for separation.After initial notification of administrative separation processing (for commission of a serious offense and family advocacy rehabilitation failure) using the procedure on 15 Jun 2009, the Applicant elected to exercise his rights to consult with a qualified counsel and request an administrative separation board. After review of all the available evidence, the ASB found the following:...

  • USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1102088

    Original file (MD1102088.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant could have provided documentation as detailed in the Post-Service Conduct paragraph in the Addendum with the recognition that 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.During the Applicant’s 1 year, 5 months, and 17 days of service, he was found guilty of two serious...

  • USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1001927

    Original file (MD1001927.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. 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), 2...

  • USMC | DRB | 2012_Marine | MD1200468

    Original file (MD1200468.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Therefore, the NDRB determined that the characterization of service is accurate and relief is not warranted based on issues of propriety.The NDRB requested and received the Applicant’s service medical record and VA medical treatment records. 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 awarded characterization of service shall but the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1000967

    Original file (ND1000967.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 .The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing for 15 years from the date...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1200734

    Original file (ND1200734.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant contends his record of service outweighs his misconduct, and he was forced into accepting a General discharge.2. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1200389

    Original file (ND1200389.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: DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD...

  • USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1100627

    Original file (MD1100627.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment or educational opportunities as regulations limit the NDRB’s review to a determination of the propriety and equity of the discharge. Relief denied.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entries and the administrative separation process, the Board found Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall and the...

  • USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1001937

    Original file (MD1001937.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 governmental affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the Applicant.The Applicant’s record of...

  • USMC | DRB | 2014_Marine | MD1400794

    Original file (MD1400794.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 .The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing for a period of fifteen...