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

 ex-PFC, USMC
Docket No. MD99-00775

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 990517, 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 000118.  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: GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/PREGNANCY; Authority MARCORSEPMAN par. 6408.

The NDRB did note an administrative error on the original DD Form 214.  Block 25, Separation Authority should read:  “MACORSEPMAN par. 6408” vice “MARCORSEPMAN par. 1004.2b/6311.3”.  The original DD Form 214 should be corrected or reissued as appropriate. 

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

1.	Wants the Montgomery G.I. Bill to provide for her family.
2.	Was told by a number of people that she would rate it with a General Discharge. 
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)		910126 - 910908	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  910909		Date of Discharge:  950106

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:  03  03  28
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  20			Years Contracted:  4 

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  53

Highest Rank:  LCPL

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Proficiency:  4.5 (7)		Conduct:  4.2 (7)

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM, SSDR, MM (2), Rifle Expert Badge (2)

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None 
Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance):

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/PREGANCY, authority:  MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6408.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

930812:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 121 (4 specs): 
Specification 1: Wrongfully appropriate sunglasses from MCX ($7.75)
Specification 2: Wrongfully appropriate Maidenform from MCX ($8.40)
Specification 3: Wrongfully appropriate dress from MCX  ($15.99)
Specification 4: Wrongfully appropriate shirt from MCX ($12.00) on or about 1030, 930724.
Awarded forfeiture of $200.00 per month for 1 month, restriction and 
extra duties for 14 days.  Forfeiture suspended for 6 months. Not appealed.
931101:	NJP imposed and suspended on 930812 vacated and ordered executed.

931108:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 121: wrongful appropriation of ironing board belonging to LCPL S_ on 1100, 931019.
	Award: Restriction and extra duty for 30 days.  Restriction suspended for 3 months.  Not appealed.

940713:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92 (2 Specs): 
Specification 1: Failure to obey order from LtCol S__on or about 1945, 940625 to wit: to stay away from and not make contact with LCPL H_/
Specification 2: Failure to obey MAJ S_ on 940624 to wit: to stay away from LCPL and not let him in your house.  
violation of UCMJ Article 107: Make a false official statement to 1stSgt N_.
	Award: Reduction to E-2, restriction and extra duties for 30 days.  Not appealed.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 950106 with a General (under honorable conditions) due to pregnancy (A).  The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (B).  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 (C and D).

In the applicant’s issues, the board determined that the applicant’s overall record does not warrant an upgrade to honorable.  To receive an honorable discharge one’s service must be considered honorable.  The NDRB determined that the applicant’s service was clearly not honorable.  In a 12 month period the applicant received 3 NJP’s.  Two were for violating Article 121, UCMJ, wrongful appropriation.  The other was for disobeying orders and making a false statement.  Relief 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. MARINE CORPS SEPARATION AND RETIREMENT MANUAL, (MCO P1900.16E, par 6408. EFFECTIVE 950818).

B.  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.  

C.  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.

D.  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 Street SE Rm 309
		Washington, D.C.  20374-5023