Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2014_Marine | MD1400628
Original file (MD1400628.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-, USMC
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20140127
Characterization of Service Received:
Narrative Reason for Discharge:
Authority for Discharge: MARCORSEPMAN

Applicant’s Request:      Characterization change to:
         Narrative Reason change to: OTHER THAN HONORABLE
        
Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive:         USMCR (DEP)       19980925 - 19980927     Active:  

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 19980928     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Months
Date of Discharge: 20050826      H ighest Rank:
Length of Service : Y ea r ( s ) M on th ( s ) 00 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 58
MOS: 0331
Proficiency/Conduct M arks (# of occasions): ( ) / ( )    Fitness R eports:

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):      Rifle (3) CoC

I n Hands of Civilian Authorities: 20031211 - 20031224, 14 days

NJP:

- 20000121 :      Article (Failure to obey order or regulation)
         Article (Larceny and wrongful appropriation)
         Awarded: Suspended:

- 20000623 :       Article (Failure to obey order or regulation)
         Awarded: Suspended:

- 20010718 :      Article (Drunken or reckless operation of a vehicle, aircraft, or vessel)
         Awarded: Suspended:

- 20020215 :      Article (Absence without leave , 2 specifications )
         Specification 1: Failed to go at time prescribed to appointed place of duty on or about 0800, 20020124
         Specification 2: Failed to go at time prescribed to appointed place of duty on or about 0530, 20020206
         Awarded: Suspended:

SCM:              CC:      Retention Warning Counseling :

SPCM:

- 20040716 :       Art icle (Absence without leave , 20020410-20031211 , 6 2 0 days )
         Sentence : CONF 75 days (20040716-20040901, 46 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:                  Other Documentation:    
                  Additional Statements:
         From Applicant:           From/To Representation:           From/To Congress member:        

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 contends his time spent on active duty exceeded his 4-year commitment, and he believes he served well.
 2.       The Applicant contends he could not return from emergency leave because he was caring for an ill family member, and this was the only time he got into any trouble in his life.
Decision

 Date: 20 1 4 0801           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 86 (Absence without leave, 2 specifications), Article 92 ( Failure to obey order or regulation , 2 specifications), Article 111 ( Drunken or reckless operation of a vehicle, aircraft, or vessel , 1 specific ation) , and Article 121 ( Larceny and wrongful appropriation , 1 specification ) and for of the UCMJ: Article 86 (Absence without leav e terminated by apprehension, 620 days). The Applicant’s service record documents a punitive conviction and punishment, as adjudged by a Special Court-Martial, on 16 July 2004 . 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, forfeiture of $ 7 00 pay per month for two months, and confinement for a period of 75 days. The C onvening A uthority approved the sentence as adjudged, but suspended all confinement in excess of 75 days for 12 months in accordance with the terms of a pretrial agreement. 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 26 August 200 5 .

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends his time spent on active duty exceeded his 4-year commitment, and he believes he served well. During the Applicant’s enlistment, he was found guilty of multiple UCMJ violations at four NJPs, which was then followed by a 620-day period of unauthorized absence that only ended with his apprehension. The reason he went beyond his 4-year commitment was because he was in an unauthorized absence status for almost two years and was properly held on legal hold after his apprehension until his Special Court-Martial was concluded. The NDRB determined the Applicant did not serve well and further determined clemency was not warranted. Relief denied.
: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends he could not return from emergency leave because he was caring for an ill family member, and this was the only time he got into any trouble in his life. While the Applicant may feel that his family situation was a contributing factor to his unauthorized absence, it was his obligation to contest this at the time it took place. He presented his case to a Special Court-Martial, which found him guilty of violating UCMJ Article 86 and sentenced him to a Bad Conduct Discharge. The NDRB found the evidence of record and the Applicant’s statement did not contain sufficient mitigating or extenuating factors to offset the seriousness of the offenses for which the discharge was awarded. Clemency is not 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 | ND1100708

    Original file (ND1100708.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Given the facts of the case during the second Special Court-Martial, the Judgefound the Applicant guilty of the charge as specified and adjudged confinement for a period of 6 months and to be discharged from the Naval Service with a Bad Conduct Discharge. Regulations limit the NDRB’s review solely to a determination of clemency based on matters regarding the equity of a discharge when considering a change to a punitive Bad Conduct Discharge. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0800784

    Original file (MD0800784.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT Applicant’s Issues 1. Furthermore, the NDRB notes the Applicant’s previous request for clemency filed on 22 November 2004 does not mention PTSD as the basis for that clemency request. 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, t

  • USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1102138

    Original file (MD1102138.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are...

  • USMC | DRB | 2015_Marine | MD1500092

    Original file (MD1500092.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Given the facts of the case, the Special Court-Martial awarded the Applicant a Bad Conduct Discharge, reduction in rank to E-1, and and confinement for a period of 75 days. ” 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1100024

    Original file (MD1100024.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues Nondecisional Issues: The Applicant seeks clemency in requesting an upgrade in the characterization of his service at discharge and a change in his reenlistment code (RE-Code) in order to facilitate reenlistment in the Armed Forces.Decisional Issues: The Applicant believes his post-service conduct is worthy of consideration. Decisional Issue (Clemency/Equity) CLEMENCY NOT...

  • USMC | DRB | 2012_Marine | MD1201292

    Original file (MD1201292.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Clemency 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. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0800817

    Original file (MD0800817.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 conduct mitigates the reason for the characterization of discharge.The Applicant provided a personal statement and as evidence of post-service accomplishments. After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Medical and Service...

  • USMC | DRB | 2012_Marine | MD1201229

    Original file (MD1201229.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant contends the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) upgraded former service members with similar cases. ” Further in the record of trial, the Applicant stated, “I respectfully request to be granted a Bad Conduct Discharge. After a complete review of the records and documentation submitted by the Applicant, the NDRB determined the Applicant’s post-service efforts do not warrant clemency.

  • USMC | DRB | 2014_Marine | MD1400488

    Original file (MD1400488.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Issue 3: (Decisional) (Clemency) RELIEF 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 upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities.

  • USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1000638

    Original file (MD1000638.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...