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)      19980115 - 19980126     Active: 

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 19980127     Age at Enlistment:
Period of Enlistment: Years Months
Date of Discharge: 20011214      Highest Rank:
Length of Service: Year(s) Month(s) 17 Day(s)
Education Level:         AFQT: 49
MOS: 6048
Proficiency/Conduct Marks (# of occasions): () / ()   Fitness Reports:

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):     Rifle MM

Period of CONF:

NJP:

- 20010926:      Article 86 (Absence without leave)
         Article 91 (Insubordinate conduct toward WO, NCO or PO)
         Awarded: Suspended:

SCM:

SPCM:

CC:

Retention Warning Counseling:

- 19990122:      For irresponsible conduct, specifically, in your financial dealing and your immoral behavior, unsatisfactory job performance, lack of initative, poor judgment, and your unprofessional behavior.

- 20000921:      For you were in violation of MCO P1020.34, which strictly prohibits the wearing of earrings.

- 20000921:      For on 20000711, 20000731, and 20000801, you were in violation of Article 86, unauthorized absence from place of duty.

- 20010726:      For failure to make progress on weight control resulting in 3.9 conduct marking.

- 20011017:      For failure to maintain financial responsibilities. You have failed to provide financial support to your wife and child. You have been instructed by this command that while you are collecting BAH and are married that you will provide your family financial support.

NDRB Documentary Review Conducted (date):        20131219
NDRB Documentary Review Docket Number:   MD13-01148
NDRB Documentary Review Findings:                 Proper as issued and that no change is warranted.


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:        

Types of Witnesses Who Testified

         Expert:           Character:      

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 discharge characterization should be upgraded because he feels his command retaliated against him with punishment and counseling’s for which he was not the movant, but his father reported the hazing upon being informed of the occurences by a staff noncommissioned officer.
2.       The Applicant contends his post-service conduct warrants an upgrade to Honorable.

Decision


Date: 20150813           Location: Washington D.C.        Representation:


By a vote of the Characterization shall .
By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall .
By a vote of the Reenlistment Code shall RE-3P .
By a vote of the Separation Code shall JFF1 .

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 6105 counseling warning and for of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 86 (Absence without leave) and Article 91 (Insubordinate conduct toward WO, NCO or PO). 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. The Applicant rights to submit a written statement and request an administrative board.

: (Decisional) () . The Applicant contends his discharge characterization should be upgraded because he feels his command retaliated against him with punishment and counseling’s for which he was not the movant, but his father reported the hazing upon being informed of the occurences by a staff noncommissioned officer. The record clearly shows along with the testimony of his former Commanding Officer of Personnel Support Detachment 16 (PSD-16), that the Applicant was hazed on a routine basis while assigned to his squadron. The Applicant’s misconduct charges were brought against him by the perpetrators of the hazing events which resulted in his assignment to PSD-16 for processing for administrative separation. There was a court-martial finding of guilt against the perpetrators of the hazing events. Upon the hazing occurences, the Applicant’s misconduct charges were expunged from his record and administrative separation processing was terminated as a result of actions taken by his Commanding Officer. The Applicant was assigned to another squadron to resume his duties; however, he was later reassigned from the squadron to PSD-16 to be separated for weight control failure. At that time, PSD-16 was under the command of another Commanding Officer than from his first assignment. During this assignment, the Applicant had minor disciplinary infractions and was further processed for that reason. After a careful review of the Applicant’s service documentation and official service records, and taking into consideration his testimony, the testimony of his witnesses, and the facts and circumstances unique to this case, the NDRB discerned no impropriety in the discharge action but did discern an inequity in the characterization of the Applicant’s service. The NDRB found that with the duration and severity of the hazing the Applicant endured and his separation processing for what his newest Commanding Officer determined to be minor infractions, the NDRB determined that, in the interest of equity, it is most appropriate to characterize the Applicant’s service as Honorable. By majority vote, the narrative reason for the discharge, Misconduct, shall change to Secretarial Authority. Since the Applicant was initially being processed for weight control failure, the NDRB determined by majority vote that the reenlistment code shall change to RE-3P.

: (Decisional) () . The Applicant contends his post-service conduct warrants an upgrade to Honorable. 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 provided a personal statement, evidence of financial responsibility and continuous employment, a collegiate transcript, and four character references. The Applicant could have provided documentation as detailed in the Post-Service Conduct paragraph in the Addendum, knowing that 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. After a review of the Applicant’s service record and other evidence presented to the NDRB, in conjunction with consideration of the factors listed in applicable references, it was determined that relief is warranted under equitable grounds even though the discharge was determined to have been otherwise equitable and proper at the time of issuance. Relief granted.

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 change to HONORABLE and the narrative reason for separation shall change to with a corresponding SPD Code of JFF1, and the reenlistment code shall change to RE-3P .

The Applicant is not eligible for further reviews 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 , or http://www.secnav.navy.mil/mra/bcnr/Pages/default.aspx 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