Upgrade.Vet

USMC | DRB | 2014_Marine | MD1400074

Original file (MD1400074.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-, USMC

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20131023

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)       20050718 - 20060611     Active:

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20060612     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Months
Date of Discharge: 20100819      H ighest Rank:
Length of Service : Y ea rs M on ths 08 D a ys
Education Level:        AFQT: 59
MOS: 6322
Proficiency/Conduct M arks (# of occasions): ( ) / ( )    Fitness R eports:

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

Periods of UA / CONF :

NJP:

- 20070308 :       Article (Absence without leave; did, at AMS-2, MATSG-21, on or about 0545, 26 February 2007, fail to go, at the time prescribed, to his appointed place of duty, to wit: physical training )
         Awarded: Suspended:

- 20080909 :      Article (Absence without leave , 8 specifications )
         Specification 1: on or about 0500, 16 June 2008 until 0645, 16 June 2008
         Specification 2: on or about 0500, 17 June 2008 until 0645, 17 June 2008
         Specification 3 : on or about 0500, 18 June 2008 until 0645, 18 June 2008
         Specification 4 : on or about 0500, 19 June 2008 until 0645, 19 June 2008
         Specification 5 : on or about 0500, 01 July 2008 until 0645, 01 J uly 2008
         Specification 6 : on or about 0500, 02 July 2008 until 0645, 02 July 2008
         Specification 7 : on or about 0500, 07 July 2008 until 0645, 07 J uly 2008
         Specification 8 : on or about 0500, 04 August 2008 until 0645, 04 August 2008
         Awarded: Suspended:

- 20081216 :      Article (Absence without leave, on or about 0600, 02 December 2008 until 0745, 02 December 2008 )
         Awarded: Suspended:

- 20100106 :      Article (Failure to obey order or regulation)
         Article (Assault)
         Awarded: Suspended:

- 2010062 4 :      Article (Absence without leave; 14 June 2010 until 23 June 2010)
         Awarded: Suspended:

SCM:     SPCM:    CC:

Retention Warning Counseling :

- 20070308 :       For violation of UCMJ Article 86; reference NJP dated 20070308

- 20080606 :       For failing to obey Squadron Order 1050.1R by wrongfully traveling by air to Angleton, TX without command approval

- 20100106 :       For violations of UCMJ Article 92 and 128 ; reference NJP dated 20100106

- 20100624 :      For violation of UCMJ Article 86 ; reference NJP dated 20100624

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 his command was biased against him.
2.       The Applicant contends he served 4 years and 2 months prior to being recommended for separation.

Decision

Date: 20 1 4 0515          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 , 11 specifications) , Article 92 ( Failure to obey order or regulation) , and Article 128 ( Assault). 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 rights to consult with a qualified counsel, submit a written statement, and request an administrative board .

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends his command was biased against him. After reviewing the Applicant’s record of service, it appears his command was quite the opposite from biased as it gave him multiple opportunities to correct his poor behavior. During the Applicant’s e nlistment, he received four retention warnings and was found guilty at five NJPs , thus clearly meeting the requirements to be administratively separated for Misconduct (Serious Offense) and Misconduct (Pattern of Misconduct) . Most Marines are separated after their second NJP, however, the Applicant’s command retained him and finally determined he was no longer fit to serve after his fifth NJP. The Applicant was provided the opportunity to present his case before an administrative board, but he waived that right, thus accepting the discharge recommended in the letter of notification. The NDRB determined the Applicant’s Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge was proper and equitable. Relief denied.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends he served 4 years and 2 months prior to being recommended for separation. Since the 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, 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 | 2012_Navy | ND1200653

Original file (ND1200653.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...
NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00510

Original file (ND00-00510.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

No indication of appeal in the record.910901: [USS MOUNT WHITNEY (LCC-20)] notified applicant of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct an misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense [EXTRACTED FROM CO'S MESSAGE]. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 911220 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to a...
USMC | DRB | 2015_Marine | MD1401397

Original file (MD1401397.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 UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS and the narrative reason for separation shall remain MISCONDUCT. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review...
NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00838

Original file (ND00-00838.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ND00-00838 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 000628, 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, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (D and E).The applicant’s representative submitted the following as issue 1: (Equity Issue) This former member contends that there were extenuating...
NAVY | DRB | 2004 Marine | MD04-01210

Original file (MD04-01210.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

010822: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (1 spec):Specification 1: UA (AWOL) from 0700, 010706 to 0700, 010709 without proper authority absence himself from his appointed place of duty. As of this time, the Applicant has not provided any documentation for the Board to consider. The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflects his willful failure to meet the requirements of his contract with the U.S. Marine Corps and falls...
NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01005

Original file (ND03-01005.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ND03-01005 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030516. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. 910723: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence 0500, 910613 to 0730, 910628 (15 days/surrendered).
NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0601012

Original file (ND0601012.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant requested that his characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Specification 6: Unauthorized absence from Morning Quarters at 0645, 961127.Violation of UCMJ, Article 91: Insubordinate conduct towards a Petty Officer.Violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Failure to obey order (failed to have room ready or inspection on 961109).Award: Forfeiture of $100 per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duty for 30 days, reduction to E-2 (suspended...
NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-01022

Original file (ND00-01022.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) also advised that the board first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. 901015: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: UA from USS KITTY HAWK, from 0700-0830, 901007, violation of UCMJ Article 92: Derelict in the performance of duty on or about 901007 by failing to clean work center space in a timely manner. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on...
NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1001010

Original file (ND1001010.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant seeks an upgrade to enhance employment opportunities2. ” 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 upgrade a discharge for the sole...
USMC | DRB | 2012_Marine | MD1201889

Original file (MD1201889.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Therefore, the Applicant did not meet the standards of conduct for an Honorable discharge for the period of active service from 21July 2003 to 4 August 2007 (which included making up 15 days of being absent without leave). 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...

Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2014_Marine | MD1400074

Similar Decisions