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

 ex-PVT, USMC
Docket No. MD99-00727

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 990504, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable.  The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review.  The applicant did not list any representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 000207.  After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, NDRB discerned no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the applicant’s service.  The Board’s vote was unanimous that the character of the discharge shall not change.  The discharge shall remain: UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Misconduct – Pattern of misconduct (administrative discharge board required but waived), authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6210.3.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

1. I request that my discharge be upgraded to an “Honorable” discharge.  My DD214 states that I received a good conduct medal.  This is a contradiction with my reason for discharge.  I feel that I deserve an “Honorable” discharge because I am a “Desert Storm” veteran.  I feel that I deserve the same benefits as any other veteran that served in any war.
Documentation

In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:

Copy of DD Form 214

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):

	Active:   USMC		None
	Inactive:  USMCR(J)		880316 - 880807	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  880808		Date of Discharge:  910905

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:  03  00  27
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  19			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  31

Highest Rank:  PFC

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Proficiency:  3.6 (8)		Conduct:  3.3 (8)

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  Rifle Sharpshooter Badge, NDSM, SSDR 

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance):

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Misconduct – Pattern of misconduct (administrative discharge board required but waived), authority:  MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6210.3.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

890510:	Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct, specifically being disrespectful to an NCO in the field on 29Apr89. Disciplinary and discharge warning issued.

890713:	Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct, specifically failure to take proper care of government property.  Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.

890725:	Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct, specifically his unsatisfactory personal appearance. Disciplinary and discharge warning issued.

891001:	Not recommended for promotion to LCPL for the month of October because of poor performance.

891101:	Not recommended for promotion to LCPL for the month of November because of lack of leadership.

891201:	Not recommended for promotion to LCPL for the month of December because of lack of leadership.

891221:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 78: Fail to provide assistance to injured Marines, violation of UCMJ Article 91: Willfully disobey n order from SSGT _ by refusing to stop when told to do so.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $349 per month for 1 month, restriction for 60 days, reduction to E-1.  Not appealed.

900123:	Counseled for frequent involvement with military authorities. Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.  Applicant refused to sign entry.

900518:	 Not recommended for promotion to PFC for the month of June due to pending admin separation.

900619:	Not recommended for promotion to PFC for the month of July because not demonstrating a positive attitude or a desire to excel in his performance.

900717:	Not recommended for promotion to PFC for the month of Aug due to being in a UA status.

900731:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: UA from 0731, 900618 to 2224, 900715.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $362 per month for 2 month, restriction and extra duty for 45 days.  Forfeiture for 2 months is hereby suspended for a period of 6 months, unless sooner vacated.  Not appealed.

900820:	Counseled concerning his unauthorized absence following a weekend liberty.  Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.

900827:	Not recommended for promotion to PFC for the month of Sept because of recent NJP.

900918:	Not recommended for promotion to PFC for the month of October because of recent NJP.

901013:	Not recommended for promotion to PFC for the month of November because of suspension sent from recent NJP.

901114:	Not recommended for promotion to PFC for the month of December because of recent NJP.

901213:	Not recommended for promotion to PFC for the month of January because of recent NJP.

910607:	Counseled concerning his performance and conduct, specifically frequent infractions of discipline as evidenced by pg 11 entries for disrespect, unsat personal appearance, failure to care for government property, poor attitude and UA.  Also noted 2 previous NJP’s for UA, disobedience of a lawful order, and failure to provide assistance to injured Marines.  Marine being retained in USMC.  Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.

910701:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 134: Did willfully alter public   record by tampering with his light duty chit, UCMJ, Article 1007: With intent to deceive, did return an official statement which record was false in that PFC__ attempted to pass off an altered document as being the truth.  
Awarded reduction to E-1, and restriction for 45 days. Restriction suspended for 6 months unless sooner vacated.  No indication of appeal in record.

910816:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct as evidenced by your nonjudicial punishments of 21Dec89, 31Jul90, and 1 Jul91, and your adverse page 11 entries of 10May89,    13Jul89, 23 Jan90, 20Aug90, and 7Jun91.

910816:  	Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult, elected to waive all rights except the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation.

910819:	Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.  The factual basis for this recommendation was the NJP’s of 21Dec89, 31Jul90, and 1Jul91 and his adverse page 11 entries of 10May90, 13Jul89, 25Jul89, 23Jan90, 20 Aug90 and 7Jun91.  

910827:	SJA review determined the case sufficient in law and fact.

910903:	GCMCA [CG, 2d MARDIV] directed the applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to minor disciplinary infractions.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 880808 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct (A and B).  The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (C).  After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (D and E).

In the applicant’s issue 1, the Board found that the applicant’s DD214 states when the Good Conduct Medal (GCM) period commences, only.  There is no indication anywhere in the applicant’s record that he was awarded the GCM .  In fact the applicant’s record would prevent him from being awarded it.  

The applicant is under the impression that he rates an honorable discharge solely because he was a Desert Storm veteran. When a Marine’s service has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service under honorable conditions.  Characterization of service as under other than honorable conditions is warranted when significant negative aspects of a member's conduct or performance of duty outweigh the positive aspects of the member's military record.  The applicant’s service was marred by the award of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on 3 occasions for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), and 6 adverse page 11 entries . Clearly, the type of discharge issued is indicative of the applicant’s service.  An upgrade to honorable would be inappropriate.  Relief is therefore denied.

The following is provided for the applicant’s edification.  The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge (E).  The applicant must be aware that there is no law or regulation which provides that an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time, or good conduct in the civilian life subsequent to leaving the service.  Normally, to permit relief, an error or injustice must have been found to have existed during the period of enlistment in question.  Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent that such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review, may be considered by the NDRB.  The applicant is reminded that he is eligible for a personal appearance hearing provided the application is received within 15 years from the date of discharge.  Representation at personal appearance hearing is highly recommended.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Paragraph 6210, Misconduct, of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16D), effective 27 Jun 89 until 17 Aug 95.

B.  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 violation of the UCMJ, Article [ e.g., Article 86, unauthorized absence for more than 30 days].

C.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 2, AUTHORITY/POLICY FOR DEPARTMENTAL DISCHARGE REVIEW.  

D.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 9, paragraph 9.2, PROPRIETY OF THE DISCHARGE.

E.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 9, paragraph 9.3, EQUITY OF THE DISCHARGE.

PART IV - INFORMATION FOR THE APPLICANT

If you believe that 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 Directive 1332.28, you may submit a complaint in accordance with Enclosure (5) of that Directive.  You should read Enclosure (5) of the Directive 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 obtain a copy of DoD Directive 1332.28 by writing to:

		DA Military Review Boards Agency
		Management Information and Support Directorate
		Armed Forces Reading Room
		Washington, D.C.  20310-1809

The names, and votes of the members of the Board are recorded on the original of this document and may be obtained from the service records by writing to:

		Naval Council of Personnel Boards
		Attn:  Naval Discharge Review Board
		Washington Navy Yard
		720 Kennon St SE Rm 309
		Washington, D.C.  20374-5023