ex-, USMC

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

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

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive:        USMCR (DEP)      20090807 - 20100627     Active: 

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20100628    Age at Enlistment:
Period of Enlistment: Years Months
Date of Discharge: 20130530     Highest Rank:
Length of Service: Year(s) Month(s) 03 Day(s)
Education Level:        AFQT: 38
MOS: 0311
Proficiency/Conduct Marks (# of occasions): () / ()   Fitness Reports:

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):     Rifle (3) (Afghanistan) ACM (1*) -ISAF

Periods of UA/CONF:

NJP:

SCM:

- 20130313:      Article 3 Specifications:
         Specification 1: Exposed 4 Marines to cruel, abusive, humiliating, oppressive and demeaning activity without the proper authority.
         Specification 2: Exposed Pvt to cruel, abusive, humiliating, oppressive and demeaning activity without the proper authority.
         Specification 3: Exposed 2 Marines to cruel, abusive, humiliating, oppressive and demeaning activity without the proper authority.
         Article 3 Specifications:
         Specification 1: Striking Marine in the stomach with a closed fist.
         Specification 2: Striking Marine on the chest with a closed fist.
         Specification 3: Striking Marine on the buttocks with his hand.
         Sentence:
         CA: Reduction to pay grade E-1, forfeiture of 2/3 pay for 1 month, and 60 days restriction.

SPCM:    CIVIL ARREST:    CC:

Retention Warning Counseling:

         120130315: For the commission of a serious offense, hazing

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 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 .

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 violations of the UCMJ, Articles 92, and 128.

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

Applicant’s Issues

1.       The Applicant contends that youth and immaturity was the underlying cause for his misconduct and discharge from the Marine Corps.
2.       The Applicant contends his discharge is inequitable because it is based on a single incident in almost three years of service.

Decision


Date: 20150402           Location: Washington D.C.        Representation:

By a vote of the Characterization shall .
By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall (SERIOUS OFFENSE) .

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 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 and for of the UCMJ: Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation; 3 specifications), and Article 128 (Assault; 3 specifications). The Applicant was referred to a special court-martial, but requested to plead guilty at the lesser SCM in order to avoid a possible punitive discharge. Based on the offense(s) committed by the Applicant, command administratively processed for separation. When notified of administrative separation processing using the procedure, the Applicant right to consult with a qualified counsel, but waived his rights to submit a written statement, and request an administrative board.

: (Decisional) () . The Applicant contends that youth and immaturity was the underlying cause for his misconduct and discharge from the Marine Corps. The Applicant pleaded guilty at SCM to numerous incidents of hazing, abuse, and assaulting his junior Marines. The Applicant voluntarily pleaded guilty at SCM in order to avoid trial at a SPCM and possible Bad Conduct Discharge. While the Applicant may feel his youth and immaturity were the underlying causes 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. 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.

: (Decisional) () . The Applicant contends his discharge is inequitable because it is based on a single incident in almost three years of service. The Applicant’s record of SCM refutes his contention that his misconduct was an isolated incident. On 21 February 2013, the Applicant pleaded guilty at SCM to three specifications of cruel, abusive, humiliating, oppressive and demeaning activities involving several of his junior Marines over a period of two months from 1 September to 31 October 2012. The Applicant also pleaded guilty to assaulting several of his junior Marines by striking them with his closed fist and open hand on the stomach, chest, and buttocks between September and November 2012. The Applicant may feel his misconduct was an isolated incident during almost three years of service, but his treatment of his subordinates constituted serious offenses and warranted his administrative discharge with Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge. 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 (SERIOUS OFFENSE) .

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