Upgrade.Vet

USMC | DRB | 2014_Marine | MD1400137

Original file (MD1400137.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-, USMC

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20131112

Characterization of Service Received:

Narrative Reason for Discharge:

Authority for Discharge: MARCORSEPMAN

Applicant’s Request:      Characterization change to: OR
                                    UNCHARACTERIZED
         Narrative Reason change to:

Summary of Service
Prior Service:
Inactive:         USMCR (DEP)       20030728 - 20040711     Active:

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20040712     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Months
Date of Discharge: 20080225      H ighest Rank:
Length of Service : Y ea rs M on ths 14 D a ys
Education Level:        AFQT: 51
MOS: 0411
Proficiency/Conduct M arks (# of occasions): ( ) / ( )    Fitness R eports:

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

Periods of UA :

NJP:
- 20050920 :       Article (Failure to obey order or regulation , 2 specifications )
         Specification 1: In that LCpl G_ when given an order from his SNCOIC not to discuss his testimony with anyone, failed to obey that order by blatantly telling witnesses about his case.
         Specification 2: In that LCpl G_ was given an order to return to work after SNM’s companion’s testimony, did not show up to work until sometime later.
         Awarded: Suspended:

- 2005 11 29 :      Article (Failure to obey order or regulation , in that LCpl G _ , did on 20051114, fail to obey a lawful order by driving his motor vehicle from MCAS Miramar to Camp Pendleton MCB on a suspended State Driver’s license )
         Article (False official statements , 2 specifications )
         Specification 1: In that LCpl G_ did, on board Camp Pendleton MCB, on 20051114, with intent to deceive, state to PMO that he was married.
         Specification 2: In that LCpl G_ did on 20051114, on board Camp Pendleton MCB state to PMO that his unit was MWHS-3 vice MWCS-38.
         Awarded: Suspended: (4 days)

SCM:              CC:               Retention Warning Counseling :

SPCM:

- 20070508 :       Article (Wrongful use, possession, etc. of controlled substances , 2 specifications )
         Specification 1: On or about 20061102, wrongfully use marijuana.
         Specification 2: On or about 20070320, wrongfully use marijuana.
         Sentence : 90 days (20070323-20070605, 75 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 an upgrade to enh ance employment opportunities.
2.       The Applicant contends now there are other options for a positive urinalysis.

Decision

Date: 20 1 4 0605          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 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 nonjudicial punishments (NJPs) for o f the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation, 3 specifications) and Article 107 (False official statements, 2 specifications) and for of the UCMJ: Article 112a ( Wrongful use, possession, etc., of controlled substances , 2 specifications) . The Applicant’s service record documents a punitive conviction and punishment, as adjudged by a Special Court-Martial, on 08 May 2007. 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, confinement for a period of 90 days, and reduction to pay grade E-1. The C onvening A uthority approved the sentence as adjudged, except for the Bad Conduct Discharge, which required an appellate review. The case was submitted for review to the U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals without assignments of error; it was reviewed and the findings were affirmed on 18 September 2007.

: (Nondecisional) The Applicant seeks an upgrade to enhance 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.

Issue 2: (Decisional) (Clemency) RELIEF NOT WARRANTED. The Applicant contends now there are other options for a positive urinalysis. The NDRB conducted a thorough review of the Applicant’s case and determined he was afforded full due process and warranted a Bad Conduct Discharge and further determined that nothing in his service record or his post-service conduct warrants clemency. 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

USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0501183

Original file (MD0501183.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

010327: GCMCA, Commanding General, Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton, CA directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct. 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 far short of that required for an upgrade of his characterization of service. As of...
USMC | DRB | 2002_Marine | MD02-01270

Original file (MD02-01270.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: None Inactive: USMCR(J) 950223 - 950321 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 950322 Date of Discharge: 990315 Length of Service (years, months, days):Active: 03 11 24 (Excludes lost time, confinement time and appellate leave.) PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 19990315 with a bad conduct discharge...
USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0600433

Original file (MD0600433.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Applicant chose not to make a statement.960510: Acknowledged understanding of eligibility but not recommended for promotion to LCpl for the month of April because of your recent NJP.Applicant chose not to make a statement.970106: Applicant to unauthorized absence at 0715 on 970106.970115: Applicant from unauthorized absence at 0715 on 970115 (9 days).970220: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: In that LCpl H_(Applicant), did, on board MCB Camp P Pendleton, CA on or about 0715, 970106,...
USMC | DRB | 2007_Marine | MD0700379

Original file (MD0700379.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Medical and Service Record Entries, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found that Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive: USMCR (DEP)20000625 - 20010605Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 20010606Years Contracted:Date of Discharge:20050317 Length of Service: 03 Yrs 09Mths12 DysLost Time:Days UA: Days Confined: Education Level: Age at...
USMC | DRB | 2014_Marine | MD1400281

Original file (MD1400281.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. He indicated he also used nonprescription narcotics from age 17 to age 19. e.g., Percocet and OxyContin.” Additionally, the record shows the Applicant had a NJP for missing movement prior to his Iraq deployment and a retention warning for his drug involvement identified through his written statement/interview with the Naval Criminal Investigation Services which was also prior...
USMC | DRB | 2013_Marine | MD1301441

Original file (MD1301441.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. ” 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 purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities.
USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0601223

Original file (MD0601223.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

After a thorough review of the Applicant’s record, issues submitted, and post service accomplishments, the Board determined that clemency was not warranted and that the sentence awarded the Applicant at his court-martial was appropriate for the offenses he committed. If a former member has been discharged for more than 15 years, has already been granted a personal appearance hearing or has otherwise exhausted his opportunities before the NDRB, the Applicant may petition the Board for...
USMC | DRB | 2013_Marine | MD1301500

Original file (MD1301500.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. ” 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 purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities.
USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1101546

Original file (MD1101546.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...
USMC | DRB | 2007_Marine | MD0700064

Original file (MD0700064.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Service Record Entries, Medical Record Entries, Elements of Discharge and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found the Applicant’s discharge proper and equitable. Not appealed.20000222: SummaryCourt-Martial: Charge I: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 86 (2 specifications). (20000303) SJA review (date): (20000412)Separation Authority (date): COMMANDING GENERAL, 2D MARINE DIVISION, II...

Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2014_Marine | MD1400137

Similar Decisions