Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2014_Marine | MD1400631
Original file (MD1400631.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-, USMC
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20140204
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)       20070601 - 20080608     Active:  

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20080609     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Months
Date of Discharge: 20120606      H ighest Rank:
Length of Service : Y ea r ( s ) M on th ( s ) 28 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 39
MOS: 0311
Proficiency/Conduct M arks (# of occasions): ( ) / ( 13 )          Fitness R eports:

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):      Rifle

Periods of CONF :

NJP:

- 20120308 :       Arti cle 85 (Desertion , 20110928-20120229, 154 days)
         Awarded: Suspended:

SCM:

- 20100211 :       Art icle (Absence without leave , 20091013-20100112, 90 days)
         Sentence :

SPCM:    CC:

Retention Warning Counseling :

- 20100211 :       For unauthorized absence.

- 20120308 :       For misconduct, specifically , NJP for violation of Article 85.

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

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

          “ 2008 06 09 ”
         “ (90) 20091013-20100111, (154) 20110928-20120228 ”

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 going through the medical board process before his misconduct.
2 .       The Applicant contends his post-service conduct warrants consideration for an upgrade.
3.       The Applicant contends Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) impaired his judgment and mitigates his misconduct.
Decision

Date: 20140501            Location: Washington D.C .         R epresentation : VFW

By a vote of the Characterization shall .
 By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall .
Discussion

 As a result of the Applicant ’ s claim of TBI , in accordance with U.S. Code, Title X, Section 1553(d)(1), the Naval Discharge Review Board reviewed the Applicant's record to see if he deployed in support of a contingency operation and was, as a consequence of that deployment, diagnosed with either P ost-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) or TBI. A review of his record revealed that he did not deploy in support of a contingency operation, and so his case did not warrant an expedited review in accordance with U.S. Cod e, Title X, Section 1553(d)(1).
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 Applicant’s record of service included 6105 counseling warnings, for o f the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 85 (Desertion , 20110928-20120229, 154 days) , and for of the UCMJ: Article 86 (Absence without leave , 20091013-20100112, 90 days). Based on the offenses , command administratively processed for separation. On 08 March 2012, the Applicant submitted a pre-trial agreement to enter a voluntary plea of guilty at an NJP or S ummary Court-Martial to his Article 85 violation and waive his administrative board if the charges were withdrawn from a S pecial C ourt- M artial. 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 he was going through the medical board process before his misconduct. Department of Defense regulations provide that disciplinary separations supersede disability separations. 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 to one indicating a medical disability. Only the Board for Correction of Naval Records can grant this type of narrative reason change. The NDRB determined his discharge was warranted, proper, and equitable. Relief denied.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends his post-service conduct warrants consideration for an upgrade. 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 four training certificates, evidence of employment, 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 documentation submitted by the Applicant does not demonstrate if in-service misconduct was an aberration. The characterization of service received was appropriate considering the length of service and UCMJ violations. Relief denied.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends TBI impaired his judgment and mitigates his misconduct. The record shows the Applicant was diagnosed and treated in service for mild TBI / Post Concussive Syndrome due to multiple concussive incidents that were non-deployment and non-combat related. On 09 March 2012, competent medical authority stated the Applicant was found fit for duty and reported no signs or symptoms concerning PTSD or TBI. A medical record dated 23 Ma y 2012 shows the Applicant w as reevaluated by Neurology on 21 May 2012 and was released without any limitations. This same record shows the Applicant was advised that his diagnosis could have been a contributing or mitigating factor in his misconduct , but he refused any further medical evaluation or treatment. In determining discharge characterization of service, the Applicant’s conduct forms the primary basis for consideration. The Applicant’s in-service conduct included one NJP and one Summary Court-Martial for extended periods of unauthorized absence that the Applicant said were related to family difficulties. These documents did not show that he was not responsible for his conduct or should n o t be held accountable for his actions. Based on t he evidence of record , the NDRB determined the Applicant ’s TBI did not mitigate his misconduct, he was responsible for his actions, and his discharge was proper and equitable. 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 | 2013_Navy | ND1301009

    Original file (ND1301009.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Representation: 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 governmental affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include...

  • USMC | DRB | 2014_Marine | MD1400148

    Original file (MD1400148.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 | 2011_Marine | MD1100298

    Original file (MD1100298.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. After considering the record, and the evidence provided by the Applicant, the NDRB determined an upgrade to General (Under Honorable Conditions) is 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2015_Marine | MD1401776

    Original file (MD1401776.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    There is no indication in the evidence of record or in the documentation submitted by the Applicant that the Applicant was recommended for or processed for a medical board by proper authority. 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2015_Marine | MD1401776 (1)

    Original file (MD1401776 (1).rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    There is no indication in the evidence of record or in the documentation submitted by the Applicant that the Applicant was recommended for or processed for a medical board by proper authority. 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1101925

    Original file (MD1101925.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    However,after excluding the misconduct for which she was subsequently acquittedpost-service and based on the remaining misconduct of record (NJP for UA; 6105 retention warning, and civil conviction), the Board determined that partial relief in upgrading her discharge to General (Under Honorable Conditions) was 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2015_Marine | MD1500421

    Original file (MD1500421.rtf) Auto-classification: 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 remain UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS and the narrative reason for separation shall remain . 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2015_Marine | MD1500071

    Original file (MD1500071.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After an exhaustive review, the NDRB determined that PTSD did not mitigate the Applicant’s misconduct. 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,...

  • USMC | DRB | 2014_Marine | MD1400498

    Original file (MD1400498.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Upon further investigation by PMO, two sticks of Spice, which violates OPNAV Instruction 5350.4C and MCO P1700.24B were found in the room where all nine Marine were found.- 20100720:For your recent NJP received on 20100710 for violation of UCMJ Article 92, specifically, your smoking of the prohibited substance Spice. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2015_Navy | ND1401648

    Original file (ND1401648.rtf) Auto-classification: 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 remain UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS and the narrative reason for separation shall remain MISCONDUCT. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application is received...