Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2015_Marine | MD1401670
Original file (MD1401670.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-, USMC

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20140910
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)      19950918 - 19950917     Active: 

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 19950912    Age at Enlistment:
Period of Enlistment: Years Months
Date of Discharge: 19991105     Highest Rank:
Length of Service: Year(s) Month(s) 18 Day(s)
Education Level:        AFQT: 62
MOS: 1345
Proficiency/Conduct Marks (# of occasions): () / ()   Fitness Reports:

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):     Rifle LoA

Periods of UA/CONF:

NJP:

- 19990301:      Article 111 (Drunken or reckless operation of vehicle, aircraft, or vessel)
         Awarded: Suspended:

SCM:

SPCM:

CIVIL ARREST:

- 19991004:      Clark County Grand Jury indicted the Applicant for the offense of murder and a warrant was issued for his arrest

CC:

Retention Warning Counseling:

- 19990407:      For your alcohol related incident which resulted in BN CMDR’s NJP. Specifically, driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol.

        





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 P1900.16E), effective 31 January 1997 until 31 August 2001.

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 .

C. The Manual for Courts-Martial authorizes the award of a punitive discharge if adjudged as part of the sentence upon conviction by a special or general court-martial for violation of the UCMJ, Article 111 and 118.



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

Applicant’s Issues

1.       The Applicant contends he served four years honorably which was more than his original enlistment.
2.       The Applicant contends his in-service conduct warrants an upgrade.
3.       The Applicant contends at the time of his discharge he had not been found guilty of any offense warranting an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions characterization.

Decision


Date: 20141230           Location: Washington D.C.        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 evidence submitted by the Applicant. The Applicant’s record of service included 6105 counseling warning, for of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 111 (Drunken or reckless operation of vehicle, aircraft, or vessel), and was indicted by the Clark County Grand Jury indicted the Applicant for the offense of murder and a warrant was issued for his arrest. 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 submit a written statement, but waived his right to request an administrative board.

: (Decisional) () . The Applicant contends he served four years honorably which was more than his original enlistment. The record clearly shows that the Applicant extended his original four year contract by seven months. Although the Applicant had served his original four-year contract, characterization of the current enlistment or period of service is determined by conduct, actions, or performance during that enlistment or service plus any extensions prescribed by law or regulations or effected with the consent of the member. Relief denied.

: (Decisional) () . The Applicant contends his in-service conduct warrants an upgrade. Based on the Applicant’s record of service, the NDRB determined the Applicant engaged in conduct involving one or more acts or omissions that constituted a significant departure from the conduct expected of members of the Naval Service, and the awarded characterization of service was warranted. Relief denied.

: (Decisional) () . The Applicant contends at the time of his discharge he had not been found guilty of any offense warranting an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions characterization. In accordance with the MARCORSEPMAN, servicemembers may be separated based on the commission of a serious military or civilian offense when the commanding officer believes the specific circumstances of the offense warrant separation and the offense would warrant a punitive discharge if adjudicated at trial by court-martial for the same or closely related offense. Commission of a serious offense does not require adjudication by nonjudicial or judicial proceedings or civilian conviction, however, the offense must be substantiated by a preponderance of evidence. The record shows that the Clark County Grand Jury indicted the Applicant for the offense of murder. The statements and documents provided by the Applicant do not refute the presumption of regularity in this case. The Applicant was provided the opportunity to present his case before an administrative board, but waived that right, thus accepting the discharge recommended in the letter of notification. 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 is no longer eligible for additional reviews or hearings by the NDRB. The Applicant may petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records, 701 South Courthouse Road, Suite 1001, Arlington, VA 22204-2490 for further review using DD Form 149. Their website can be found at http://www.donhq.navy.mil/bcnr/bcnr.htm . 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 | 2009_Marine | MD0900228

    Original file (MD0900228.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In response to this Issue, the NDRB will address these elements separately for clarity:-The Applicant should understand he was separated based on the ASB’s determination the preponderance of the evidence supported the Applicant’s illegal drug involvement as alleged by the government. The Government properly used, as stated on the Applicant’s DD-214, Paragraph 6210.5 MISCONDUCT – Drug Abuse, as the authority for separating the Applicant. The NDRB determined an upgrade would be...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1001197

    Original file (ND1001197.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 29 June 2008, the Applicant was discharged with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) characterization for Misconduct (Civilian Conviction) and was not recommended for reenlistment or reentry. Summary : After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entries, and discharge process, the NDRB determined that Therefore, the narrative reason for separation shall change to , however, the awarded characterization of service shall . ”...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900974

    Original file (ND0900974.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.Was discharged for charges that were discharged by the Lake County court. ” 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00837

    Original file (ND03-00837.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-00837 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030409. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. 010216: An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence and by unanimous vote, found that the Applicant had committed a serious offense and civil conviction, that the misconduct warranted separation, and recommended discharge under...

  • AF | DRB | CY2006 | FD2005-00420

    Original file (FD2005-00420.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    SOUTH CAROLINA 10 Sep 96 MEMORANDUM FOR AB i b.-..-..-..-..-..-.--------------------------! Between on or about 6 Aug 95, and on or about 21 Aug 95, at or near Sumter County, South Carolina, you conspired with: existent business for the purpose of committing larceny, and you conspired with the same persons to receive stolen goods. Airman's Receipt of Notification Memorandum Grand Jury Indctment, dtd 2 Jan 96 :Memoranda, dtd 4 Jan 96 m

  • NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1201881

    Original file (ND1201881.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: DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0800650

    Original file (ND0800650.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The record reflects the Commander, Naval Medical Center, San Diego notified the Applicant of his proposed administrative processing by reason of misconduct due to the civilian conviction and commission of a serious offense. Based on the evidence contained in the record, the Board determined the Applicant received proper notice of administrative separation processing and was provided the opportunity to present his case before an administrative board, but waived that right, thus accepting the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900783

    Original file (ND0900783.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Based on the evidence of record, the NDRB determined the Applicant’s statement does not support his contention.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 until fifteen years from the date of ...

  • USMC | DRB | 2015_Marine | MD1501252

    Original file (MD1501252.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Based on a civilian arrest for first degree murder, his command administratively processed him for separation. Although the Applicant contends that he was a good Marine, he was arrested and separated from military service based on charges of first degree murder which reflects poorly on the Marine Corps and constitutes a significant departure from the conduct expected of members of the Naval Service thus warranting a discharge characterization of Under Other Than Honorable Conditions. ”...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100012094

    Original file (20100012094.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests that he be given an honorable discharge by reason of physical disability. On 19 February 2008, the applicant was separated with a general discharge under the provisions of paragraph 14-12c, Army Regulation 635-200 for misconduct (serious offense). The applicant requests an honorable discharge by reason of physical disability.