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)      20050709 - 20050717     Active:  USMC 20050718 - 20080625

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20080626    Age at Enlistment:
Period of Enlistment: Years Months
Date of Discharge: 20130614     Highest Rank:
Length of Service: Year(s) Month(s) 20 Day(s)
Education Level:        AFQT: 82
MOS: 0311/0913
Proficiency/Conduct Marks (# of occasions): () / ()   Fitness Reports:

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):     Rifle (w/ combat “V” (Iraq) (2) ACM(w/ star) (w/ 3 stars) (3)

Periods of UA/CONF:

NJP:

- 20110713:      Article 86 (Absence without leave, failure to be at appointed place of duty, to wit: a tactics section physical training evolution, and did remain absent until his squad leader found him sleeping in his barracks room)
         Article 89 (Disrespect toward superior commissioned officer, in the presence of three other Marines and two Officer Candidates, willfully ignore Captain B_’s order to put on PPE while cleaning his weapon at the solvent tank, and then, when further questioned by Captain B_ as to his blatant disregard of her order and apparent attitude problem, did, with contempt, roll his eyes at Captain B_)
         Article 91 (Insubordinate conduct toward warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer, to wit: when found sleeping in his barracks room and therefore UA from a section training event, yell at Sergeant A_, “Get the fuck out of my face”)
         Awarded: Suspended:

- 20120418:      Article 91 (Insubordinate conduct toward warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer)
         Awarded: Suspended:

- 20121012:      Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation, by wrongfully possessing two firearms in the Officer Candidates School Bachelor Enlisted Quarters)
         Awarded: Suspended: [Vacated on 20130313 for violation of Article 107 (False official statements, on or about 20121217 told Magistrate you received a NJP for your driving while intoxicated)]

SCM:

SPCM:

CC:

Retention Warning Counseling:

- 20110713:      For your violations of Articles 86, 89, and 91 of the UCMJ.

- 20121012:      For your violations of Article 92 of the UCMJ.

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 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 contends his PTSD led to his misconduct.

Decision


Date: 20150507           Location: Washington D.C.        Representation:

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

Discussion

As a result of the Applicant’s claim of PTSD or TBI, in accordance with U.S. Code, Title X, Section 1553 (d)(1), the Naval Discharge Review Board included a member who is a physician, clinical psychologist, or psychiatrist. In accordance with section 1553 (d)(2), the service secretary expedited a final decision and accorded the case sufficient priority to achieve an expedited resolution. The Applicant stated that he was diagnosed with PTSD related to his combat service. The Applicant’s service record documents completion of two deployments to Iraq from September 2006 to April 2007 and from February to June 2008 conducting combat operations in support of Operation IRAQI FREEDOM and one deployment to Afghanistan from May to October 2009 conducting combat operations in support of Operation ENDRUING FREEDOM and Operation KHANJAR. 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 86 (Absence without leave, failure to be at appointed place of duty), Article 89 (Disrespect toward superior commissioned officer), Article 91 (Insubordinate conduct toward warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer, 2 specifications), and Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation). 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. The administrative board voted that the preponderance of the evidence supported that the Applicant had a pattern of misconduct and recommended that he be separated with an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions characterization.

: (Decisional) () . The Applicant contends his PTSD led to his misconduct. The Applicant provided a Veterans Affairs disability determination annotating that he is receiving a 70 percent disability due to PTSD. The Applicant’s official military service record diagnosis of PTSD supports his contention that he suffered from PTSD in service. The evidence of record shows that the administrative separation board and Separating Authority took the Applicant’s PTSD into proper consideration in determining the Applicant’s characterization of service. In determining discharge characterization of service, the Applicant’s conduct forms the primary basis for consideration. The Applicant’s in-service conduct included three NJPs; his final NJP punishment was vacated due to his violation of Article 107 (False official statements) and he was counseled for having a female in the barracks after hours and not being signed in with the duty. These were conscious and willful failures to meet the requirements of his contract honorably. The evidence of record did not show that the PTSD was a sufficient mitigating factor to excuse the Applicant’s conduct or accountability concerning his actions. After an exhaustive review, the NDRB determined that PTSD did not mitigate the Applicant’s misconduct anything beyond that already considered by the Separating Authority. 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 . 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