Upgrade.Vet

USMC | DRB | 2015_Marine | MD1401464

Original file (MD1401464.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-, USMCR

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20140723

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)      20111018 - 20111106     Active:

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20111107    Age at Enlistment:
Period of Enlistment: Years Months
Date of Discharge: 20121121     Highest Rank:
Length of Service: Year(s) Month(s) 15 Day(s)
Education Level:        AFQT: 36
MOS: 8011
Proficiency/Conduct Marks (# of occasions): () / ()   Fitness Reports:

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):     Rifle

Periods of UA/CONF:

NJP:

- 20120423:      Article 134 (General article – wrongfully participated in conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline by playfully putting a knife to the throat of PVT S_)
         Awarded: Suspended:

- 20120606:      Article 121 (Larceny and wrongful appropriation, wrongfully appropriated a Verizon wireless hotspot device, valued at $50.00, property of PFC Y_)
         Awarded: Suspended:

- 20121022:      Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation) 2 specifications
         Specification 1: Fail to sign out of the liberty logbook
         Specification 2: Leave the battery area to go to the Fort Sill bowling alley while under a Sick in Quarters (SIQ) chit
         Awarded: Suspended:

SCM:

SPCM:

CC:

Retention Warning Counseling:

- 20120423:      For violation of Article 134 (General article – wrongfully participated in conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline by playfully putting a knife to the throat of PVT S_).

- 20120606:      For violation of Article 121 (Larceny and wrongful appropriation, wrongfully appropriated a Verizon wireless hotspot device, valued at $50.00, property of PFC Y_).

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

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

         “”

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:                  Other Documentation:
                  Additional Statements:
         From Applicant:          From/To Representation:          From/To Congress member:

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 seeks to reenlist into the National Guard.
2.       The Applicant contends his immaturity led to his misconduct.

Decision

Date: 20141204          Location: Washington D.C.        Representation:

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

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 evidence submitted by the Applicant. The Applicant’s record of service included 6105 counseling warnings and for of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation, 2 specifications; [Specification 1: Fail to sign out of the liberty logbook] and [Specification 2: Leave the battery area to go to the Fort Sill bowling alley while under a Sick in Quarters (SIQ) chit]), Article 121 (Larceny and wrongful appropriation, wrongfully appropriated a Verizon wireless hotspot device, valued at $50.00, property of PFC Y_), and Article 134 (General article – wrongfully participated in conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline by playfully putting a knife to the throat of PVT S_). Based on the offenses committed by the Applicant, command administratively processed for separation. When notified of administrative separation processing using the procedure, the Applicant rights to consult with a qualified counsel and request an administrative board, but exercised his right to submit a written statement.

: (Nondecisional) The Applicant seeks to reenlist into the National Guard. 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.

: (Decisional) () . The Applicant contends his immaturity led to his misconduct. While the Applicant may feel his immaturity was the underlying cause of his misconduct, the record clearly reflects his willful misconduct and demonstrated he was unfit for further service. The evidence of record does not demonstrate the Applicant was not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions. 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 remain UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS and the narrative reason for separation shall remain MISCONDUCT. 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 | 2006_Navy | ND0600332

Original file (ND0600332.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Issues, as stated Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:“-I would like for my RE-4 code and/or my narrative reason to be upgraded for eligibility to return to a branch of service.” Appeal denied 031105.031008: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with the least favorable characterization of service as general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct - pattern of misconduct and misconduct - commission of serious offense. The names, and votes of...
NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00315

Original file (ND03-00315.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Violation of UCMJ Article 134, Wrongfully receive military allowance of about $800.00. Sentence: To be discharged from the naval service with a bad conduct discharge. After a thorough review of the Applicant’s record, issues submitted, the Board determined that clemency was not warranted.
NAVY | DRB | 2004 Marine | MD04-01030

Original file (MD04-01030.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. 980723: GCMCA, Commanding General, Marine Corps Base, Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense. Specifically, the applicant contends that his discharge was unjust “s ince my substantive and procedural due process rights were denied to me and my...
NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501521

Original file (ND0501521.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable and the Narrative Reason for Separation be changed to “Hardship/Financial.” The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review. He has a long pattern of acting on his intent regardless of the directing of his command. No indication of appeal in the record.020819: DD Form 214: Applicant discharged General (Under Honorable Conditions) with narrative reason of...
NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600126

Original file (ND0600126.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Therefore, it is recommended that Seaman Recruit Y_ (Applicant) be separated from the naval service with an Other Than Honorable discharge.”GCMCA, Chief of Naval Education and Training directed the Applicant's discharge with other than honorable by reason of misconduct commission of a serious offense.990120: DD Form 214: Applicant discharged under other than honorable...
USMC | DRB | 2012_Marine | MD1200343

Original file (MD1200343.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant’s record of serviceincluded 6105 counseling retention warning and one Special Court-Martial for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 92 (Failure to obey an order or regulation, 7 specifications: Wrongfully striking numerous recruits with excessive force to correct the position of the recruits, o/o 24 May-26 Jul 2008; wrongfully hazing numerous recruits, ordering recruits to fall from the standing position to their knees onto the cement ground, o/o...
NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600584

Original file (ND0600584.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

*Third set of Performance and Behavior marks extracted from supporting documents submitted by the Applicant (page 1 only) Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance):UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, authority: MILPERSMAN, Article 1910-140 (formerly 3630600). Pt stated that he has had suicidal thoughts since a kid but denied any plans or attempts. When the service of a member of the U.S. Navy has been honest and faithful, it is...
NAVY | DRB | 2004 Marine | MD04-01100

Original file (MD04-01100.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

” Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214 (2) Two pages from Applicant’s service record PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: USMC 850705 - 890428 HON 890509 – 921029 HON 921030 – 960731 HON Inactive: USMCR(J) 841212 - 850704 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 960801 Date of Discharge: 030605 Length...
NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500167

Original file (ND0500167.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant’s DD Form 214 Copy of Commander’s Navy Region Hawaii, Discharge Authority PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: USNR...
NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1200991

Original file (ND1200991.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to:Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive:USNR (DEP)19950717 - 19951009Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Current Enlistment: 19951010Age at Enlistment: Period of Enlistment: YearsExtensionDate of Discharge:19990808Highest Rank/Rate: ANLength of Service: Year(s) Month(s) 27 Day(s)Education Level:AFQT: 36EvaluationMarks:Performance:3.3(4)Behavior:2.5(4)OTA: 3.07Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):Periods...

Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2015_Marine | MD1401464

Similar Decisions