Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2014_Marine | MD1400743
Original file (MD1400743.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-, USMC
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20140305
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)       19980528 - 19980803     Active:  

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 19980804     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Months
Date of Discharge: 20020903      H ighest Rank:
Length of Service : Y ea r ( s ) M on th ( s ) 0 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 80
MOS: 3533
Proficiency/Conduct M arks (# of occasions): /          Fitness R eports:

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):      Rifle

NJP:     SCM:              CC:      Retention Warning Counseling :

SPCM:

- 20010316 :       Art icle ( Absence without leave , 2 specifications )
         Specification 1: 20000801-20000924, 55 days
         Specification 2: 20001012-20010108, 89 days
         Art icle ( Wrongful use, possession, etc., of controlled substances , m arijuana)
         Sentence : CONF 45 days (per DD 214: 20010316-20010419, 34 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:        







DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB)
DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT

Applicant’s Issues

 1.       The Applicant contends his in-service conduct warrants clemency .
2.       The A pplicant contends his divorce hit him hard, and his command did not provide any help when he asked.
 3. The Applicant contends he was given bad advice by his lawyer , and his punishment was unjust for the offense.

Decision

 Date: 20 1 4 0814           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 Special Court-Martial for of the UCMJ: Article 86 (Absence without leave , 55 days and 89 days) and Article 112a ( Wrongful use, possession, etc., of controlled substances , marijuana ). The Applicant’s service record documents a punitive conviction and punishment, as adjudged by a Special Court-Martial, on 1 6 March 200 1 . 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 $ 65 0 pay per month for two months, reduction to pay grade E-1, and confinement for a period of 45 days. The C onvening A uthority ap proved the sentence as adjudged . 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 15 August 2002.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends his in-service conduct warrants an upgrade. The Applicant’s case was considered under the pertinent standards of equity to determine if any factors in this particular case merited clemency. The NDRB found the evidence of record did not contain sufficient mitigating or extenuating factors to offset the seriousness of the offenses for which the discharge was awarded. The Applicant did not serve honorably. Relief denied.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends his divorce hit him hard, and his command did not provide any help when he asked. While the Applicant may feel that his divorce and perceived lack of command support were contributing factor s to his misconduct, they do not mitigate his disobedience of the orders and directives that regulate good order and discipline in the Naval Service, demonstrating he was unsuitable for further service. Relief denied.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends he was given bad advice by his lawyer, and his punishment was unjust for the offense. The Applicant’s lawyer’s incorrect advice that he could reenlist after two years does not warrant clemency. The NDRB reviews whether clemency is warranted for each punitive discharge individually, on a case-by-case basis. If such a review reveals an issue whereby clemency is warranted, relief is in order. Based upon available records, nothing indicates that the Applicant’s discharge was in any way inconsistent with the standards of discipline in the United States Marine Corps. A preponderance of the evidence reviewed supports the conclusion that the Applicant committed multiple serious offenses, that a punitive discharge was appropriate, and that a Bad Conduct Discharge 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.

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 .


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 | 2010_Marine | MD1000091

    Original file (MD1000091.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant should be aware submission of these items alone does not guarantee clemency as each discharge is reviewed by the NDRB on a case-by-case basis.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 BAD CONDUCT and the narrative reason for separation shall remain .The Applicant remains eligible for a personal...

  • USMC | DRB | 2014_Marine | MD1401271

    Original file (MD1401271.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Therefore no two cases, no matter how similar, are guaranteed to receive the same punishment. ” 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. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1101000

    Original file (ND1101000.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 Government affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the Applicant. ” Additional Reviews :...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801825

    Original file (ND0801825.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to: Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive: USNR (DEP)19910228 - 19910423Active: 19910424 – 19950624 HONORABLE 19950625 – 20010419 HONORABLE Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 20010420Age at Enlistment:Period of Enlistment: YearsExtensionDate of Discharge:20071016Highest Rank/Rate:E-6Length of Service: 16Years Months23 DaysEducation Level:12AFQT:...

  • 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.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0601114

    Original file (ND0601114.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Elements of Discharge: [BAD CONDUCT DISCHARGE] Record of Trial Complete: Date Charges Preferred: 20020120, 20020203, 20020301Charge(s) and Specification(s): I: Article 86: 6 specifications of absence from unit or failing to go to place of duty, various dates II: Article 95: 20020111, resistapprehension III: Article 109: 20011027, Wrongfully damaging property of another by slashing 4 tires IV: Article 134: 3 specifications of impersonating a commissioned officer; 2 specifications of...

  • USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1100109

    Original file (MD1100109.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    As such, matters of propriety are not within the authority of the NDRB in relation to punishment as adjudged in a punitive trial by court-martial. Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall BAD CONDUCT DISCHARGE and the narrative reason for separation shall remain . ” 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900187

    Original file (ND0900187.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The NDRB determined the Applicant’s separation was appropriate considering the length of service and the UCMJ violation involved.After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Record Entries, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found ADDENDUM: Information for the Applicant Complaint Procedures : If you believe that the decision in your case is unclear, not responsive to the issues you raised, or does not...

  • USMC | DRB | 2015_Marine | MD1500678

    Original file (MD1500678.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 BAD CONDUCT DISCHARGE 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 otherwise comport with...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2015_Navy | ND1500615

    Original file (ND1500615.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Given the facts of the case, the Special Court-Martial awarded the Applicant a Bad Conduct Discharge, reduction to (E-1), forfeiture of pay, and confinement for 120 Days. 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 BAD CONDUCT and the narrative reason for separation shall remain COURT-MARTIAL. ” Additional...