Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2015_Marine | MD1500319
Original file (MD1500319.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-, USMC

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20141125
Characterization of Service Received:
Narrative Reason for Discharge:
Reenlistment Code:
Authority for Discharge: MARCORSEPMAN

Applicant’s Request:     Characterization change to:
         Narrative Reason change to:

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive:        USMCR (DEP)      20040226 - 20040822     Active: 

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20040823     Age at Enlistment:
Period of Enlistment: Years Months
Date of Discharge: 20070830      Highest Rank:
Length of Service: Year(s) Month(s) 08 Day(s)
Education Level:         AFQT: 64
MOS: 6046
Proficiency/Conduct Marks (# of occasions): () / ()   Fitness Reports:

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):     NFIR

Periods of UA/CONF:

NJP:     SCM:     SPCM:    CIVIL ARREST:    CC:

Retention Warning Counseling:

- 20060111:      For failure to meet minimum standards of performance. Specifically failing to meet Marine Corps Physica Fitness Test standards.

- 20061006:      For extension on the Marine Corps BCP. Made reasonable progress but failed to reach required body composition.

- 20070125:      For failure to maintain height and weight standards.

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

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

         “UNSATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE”
         “MARCORSEPMAN 6206”

The NDRB will recommend to the Commandant of the Marine Corps 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 6206, UNSATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE , 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 an upgrade would make him eligible to utilize the GI Bill.
2. The Applicant contends his medical condition contributed to his failure to meet Marine Corps Body Composition Standards
and had he received proper medical treatment he would have been able to comply with the Marine Corps Body Composition
Standards.
3. The Applicant contends his service was honorable and an upgrade in his discharge characterization is merited.

Decision


Date: 20150402           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 warnings. Based on the Applicant’s unsatisfactory performance of duties, command administratively processed for separation. When notified of administrative separation processing using the procedure, the Applicant rights to consult with a qualified counsel, submit a written statement, and request a General Court-Martial Convening Authority review.

: (Nondecisional) The Applicant contends an upgrade would make him eligible to utilize the GI Bill. 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.

: (Decisional) () . The Applicant contends his medical condition contributed to his failure to meet Marine Corps Body Composition Standards and had he received proper medical treatment he would have been able to comply with the Marine Corps Body Composition Standards. The record clearly shows the Applicant’s command did have the Applicant evaluated by competent US Naval medical personnel on two separate occasions. The report of 9 December 2005 from the unit’s Medical Officer indicated the Applicant did not have an underlying cause or associated disease. The Applicant was fit for participation in a Body Composition Program (BCP) and Remedial Physical Conditioning Program. The Medical Officer also prescribed weight and body fat reduction goals and dietary guidelines. The Applicant was reevaluated on 20 July 2006. The Medical Officer reported “SNM’s present body composition status is not due to an underlying cause of associated disease.” The Applicant’s commander personally interviewed him on 12 March 2007. The Commander stated in his letter dated 12 March 2007, “[a]n inordinate amount of effort has been put forth by the Silver Eagles’ leadership in attempting to assist SNM with his shortcomings but have netted negative results.” The Applicant’s Commander told him the administrative discharge would commence “due to his failure of subsequent BCP assignments…and his failure of semi-annual PFTs”. The NDRB reviewed the Applicant’s medical and service record and does not consider the circumstances surrounding the Applicant’s stated condition or diagnosis to be of sufficient nature to excuse the Applicant’s unsatisfactory performance of duties. Relief denied.

: (Decisional) () . The Applicant contends his service was honorable and an upgrade in his discharge characterization is merited. 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 had unsatisfactory performance in that he failed to comply with Marine Corps Body Composition Standards, that separation from the Marine Corps was appropriate, and that a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge was warranted. The NDRB recognizes that serving in the military is challenging. Most servicemembers, however, serve honorably and therefore earn their Honorable discharges. In fairness to those servicemembers who served honorably, commanders and separation authorities are tasked to ensure that undeserving Sailors receive no higher characterization than is due. The NDRB found the characterization of the Applicant’s discharge was equitable and consistent with the characterization of discharge given others in similar circumstances. 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 GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS) 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: Effective 6 February 2015, the NDRB is authorized to change a NDRB Applicant’s Reenlistment Code if related to an accompanying change in discharge characterization or narrative, but this authority is strictly limited to those cases where an applicant’s narrative reason or characterization of discharge is changed and that change warrants revision of the previously issued reenlistment code. 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 | 2012_Marine | MD1201652

    Original file (MD1201652.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to: Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive:USMCR (DEP)20060620 - 20070610Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Current Enlistment: 20070611Age at Enlistment: Period of Enlistment: Years MonthsDate of Discharge:20110809Highest Rank:Length of Service: Year(s)Month(s)29 Day(s)Education Level: AFQT:53MOS: 5811Proficiency/Conduct Marks (# of occasions):()/()Fitness Reports: Awards and Decorations (per DD...

  • USMC | DRB | 2014_Marine | MD1401194

    Original file (MD1401194.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. ” 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 | 2008_Marine | MD0801642

    Original file (MD0801642.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The separation processing can be based on one of two paragraphs in the Marine Corps Separations Manual: Paragraph 6215 which is used when the sole reason for separation is failure to meet weight and body fat standards, and the Marine's performance and conduct otherwise conform with established standards; or paragraph 6206 which is used when a Marine is separated for failure to conform to weight standards as a result of apathy or a lack of self discipline.The Applicant’s command, based on the...

  • USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0500755

    Original file (MD0500755.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The basis for discharge is the Applicant's failure to meet standards for weight control and body fat composition. Commanding Officer's comments: "Based on Lance Corporal C_'s (Applicant's) failure to meet the Marine Corps Standards for weight control and body fat, it is requested that he be separated from the Marine Corps with a general discharge." The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge to the extent such matters provide a basis for...

  • USMC | DRB | 2014_Marine | MD1401249

    Original file (MD1401249.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. 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 GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS) and the narrative reason for separation shall remain UNSATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE. ” Additional Reviews...

  • USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0500756

    Original file (MD0500756.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Request a medical evaluation be conducted to determine the Applicant’s medical status for BCP and Remedial Physical Conditioning Program (RPCP) participation. [Your unsatisfactory performance while assigned to the Marine Corps Body Composition Program. Therefore, the narrative reason for separation, as stated on the DD214, is incorrect and should be changed from weight control failure to unsatisfactory performance.On 20021105 the Applicant was assigned to Marine Corps Body Composition...

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0900919

    Original file (MD0900919.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.Lost his education benefits. Per the Medical Officer, Marine Wing Communications Squadron 38 letter 6100 MO of 17 July 2007, the Applicant’s “present body composition status is not due to an underlying cause or associated disease.” The Applicant provided no documentation to counter the medical officer’s diagnosis or the Marine Corps body composition standards.Summary: After a...

  • USMC | DRB | 2014_Marine | MD1400643

    Original file (MD1400643.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant contends he was discharged solely for weight / BCP, and a narrative reason of Unsatisfactory Performance indicates there was disciplinary action.Per paragraph 6206, UNSATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE, of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual (MARCORSEPMAN), a member may be separated if the Marine is unqualified for further service by reason of unsatisfactory performance when performance of assigned tasks and duties in a manner that does not contribute to unit readiness...

  • USMC | DRB | 2012_Marine | MD1201696

    Original file (MD1201696.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board did complete a thorough review of the circumstances that led to discharge and the discharge process to ensure discharge met the pertinent standards of equity and propriety.The Applicant’s record of service included 6105 counseling warnings for unsatisfactory performance on the Marine Corps Body Composition Program (BCP). ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application is...

  • USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1001147

    Original file (MD1001147.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Separation Authorityreviewed the Command’s recommendation for separation; he determined that the Applicant’s documented record of service established the minimum requirements for discharge based on a demonstrated unsatisfactory performance of duties; that separation in the Applicant’s case was warranted; and further, that the proposed characterization of service -General (UnderHonorable Conditions) - was warranted. On 06 October 2003, the Separation Authority directed the Applicant be...