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)      19990203 - 19990628     Active: 

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 19990629    Age at Enlistment:
Period of Enlistment: Years Months
Date of Discharge: 20030507     Highest Rank:
Length of Service: Year(s) Month(s) 08 Day(s)
Education Level:        AFQT: 55
MOS: 0311
Proficiency/Conduct Marks (# of occasions): () / ()   Fitness Reports:

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):     Rifle

Periods of UA:

NJP:

- 20000503:      Article (Failure to obey order or regulation) Underage Drinking
         Article (Drunken or reckless operation of a vehicle, aircraft, or vessel)
         Article (General article) Drunk and disorderly
         Awarded: Suspended:

SPCM:

- 20020215:      Article (Wrongful use, possession, etc. of controlled substance)
         Article (Insubordinate conduct toward warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer)
         Sentence: CONF 75 days (20010314-20010514)
         CA: 1 ^st BN, 6 ^th Marines, 2d Marine Division, II MEF, Camp Lejeune

SCM:

CC:

Retention Warning Counseling:

- 20000317:      For alcohol related incident, specifically, underage drinking/DWI/DUI on 20000402.





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 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 .

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

Applicant’s Issues

1. The Applicant contends he was issued a Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD) because he asked the Judge in his Court Martial to
issue him a BCD.
2. The Applicant contends that he was young, naïve and scared; that he did not know how to face the consequences of his
actions.
3. The Applicant contends that he was a great Marine while on the clock and that his problems stem from his liberty period and
substance abuse.
4. The Applicant contends that he has been clean and sober for 3 and a half years and a contributing member of society
gainfully employed at the same company for 6 and a half years.

Decision

Date: 2015225            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. 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 6105 counseling warnings, for of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation, Underage Drinking), Article 111 (Drunken or reckless operation of a vehicle, aircraft, or vessel), Article 134 (General article, Drunk and disorderly); and for of the UCMJ: Article 112a (Wrongful use, possession, etc. of controlled substance), and Article 91 (Insubordinate conduct toward warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer). The Applicant did not have a pre-service drug waiver for using marijuana prior to entering the Marine Corps, and acknowledged complete understanding of the Marine Corps Policy Concerning Illegal Use of Drugs on 01 February 1999. The Applicant’s service record documents a punitive conviction and punishment, as adjudged by a Special Court-Martial, on 10 May 2001. 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, reduction to (E-1), forfeiture of pay, and confinement for 75 Days. The Convening Authority approved the sentence as adjudged. The case was submitted for review to the U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals; it was reviewed and the findings were affirmed on 30 December 2002.

: (Decisional) () . The Applicant contends he was issued a Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD) because he asked the Judge in his Court Martial to issue him a BCD. In accordance with Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, relevant and material facts as stated in a court-martial are presumed by the NDRB to be established facts. As such, matters of propriety related to the conduct of a punitive court-martial (e.g., Special Court-Martial) are addressed through the appellate review process by the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals or through further petitioning for a review by the Court of Appeals of the Armed Forces. The Applicant’s appellate rights statement and certification of his acknowledgment of those rights, which detail this process, are appended to the verbatim record of trial by court-martial. In the Applicant’s case, the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed the case and affirmed the decision. As such, this issue does not serve to provide a foundation upon which the NDRB can grant relief. Relief denied.


: (Decisional) () . The Applicant contends that he was young, naïve and
scared; that he did not know how to face the consequences of his actions. 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. Relief denied.

: (Decisional) () . The Applicant contends that he was a great Marine while on the clock and that his problems stem from his liberty period and substance abuse. After a careful review of the Applicant's statement, official service records, and the facts and circumstances unique to this case, 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.

4: (Decisional) () . The Applicant contends that he has been clean and sober for
3 and a half years and a contributing member of society gainfully employed at the same company for 6 and a half years. Statements alone, without sufficient documentary evidence, are not enough for the NDRB to form a basis of relief. The NDRB considers 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. The Applicant could have provided documentation as detailed in the Post-Service Conduct paragraph in the Addendum , however, completion of these items alone does not guarantee an upgrade from an unfavorable discharge as each discharge is reviewed by the Board on a case by case basis to determine if post-service conduct establishes that the in-service misconduct was an aberration. To warrant an upgrade, the Applicant’s post-service efforts need to be more encompassing. After a careful review 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 BAD CONDUCT DISCHARGE and the narrative reason for separation shall remain COURT-MARTIAL. 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