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

 ex-LCPL, USMC
Docket No. MD99-00932

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 990629, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable conditions.  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 000512.  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 CONDITIONS OTHER THAN HONORABLE/Separation in lieu of trial by court-martial, authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6419.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

1.  Before I was discharged I had been ready to reenlist again but my orders were tampered with by W-O W___ so that I would be under his command at a training base in Hawaii. I had just spent a tour truing at weapons training Battalion in Quantico VA.  I wanted to go back to the FMF.  I went to Lt.Col W_ and requested to get out of the Marines that I was not happy about the way my career was being changed for someone else.  He told me that the marines had trained and put to much money in me to let me pit.  That is the same time that the new IAW came out that if you requested to get out they would let you out because it was cheaper.  So I left after having a confrontation with the W-O because I tried to change by orders.  Lt.Col W__ will back my story.  After I was gone 30 days he said they would put me in the brigg, then make me serve my new enlistment after 60 days he said if I came back own my own there would be no brigg time and he gave me his word I would be out in twenty days.  I had reminded him that I came to his office and told him of my problem and of what he said.  He gave me his word and said he had made a mistake in not listening to me.  I came back stayed in the barracks and worked for twenty days then got out.  I had an outstanding service record and was highly trained. 
Documentation

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

Copy of DD Form 214
Completion certificate for Scout-Sniper dtd 791116
Certificate of Proficiency for Scout Sniper Instructor School dtd 800516
Ltr from CO, 3rd Recruit Training Bn to Mr. D__ dtd 790411
Discharge Certificate dtd 841221
Certificate of Acceptance dtd 790112
Meritorious Promotion Warrant to LCPL 
Meritorious Promotion Warrant to PFC
Promotion Warrant to CPl
Special Achievement Award
Completion Certificate for MOS 0311, Rifleman
MCI Completion Certificate for Reconnaissance Marine
Completion Certificate for Radar Operator School
MCI Completion Certificate for NBC
MCI Completion Certificate for INF SM UNITS COUNTERINSURG OP
Certificate of Completion for Driver Improvement Course
Honorable Discharge Certificate dtd 820125
Univ. of Arizona Certificate for completion of Navy Alcohol Safety Action Program
Palomar College Certificate of Achievement for Basic Skills Education Program
High School transcript
High School Adult Education Diploma
Brazosport College transcript
Certificate of Recognition for Medic First Aid Course Retraining 
Amoco Gas safety award
Amoco Gas expertise award 
Amoco Gas Appreciation Certificate
Amoco Gas Safety Initiative Certificate

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   USMC		790124 – 820125	HON	
	Inactive: USMCR(J)		790112 - 790123	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  820126		Date of Discharge:  841221

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:  02  09  01
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  21			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  10			AFQT:  55

Highest Rank:  SGT

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Proficiency:  4.6		Conduct:  4.5

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  CGM, MM, SSDR, Rifle Expert Badge (5th award), Pistol Sharpshooter Badge 

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  54 

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

UNDER CONDITIONS OTHER THAN HONORABLE /Separation in lieu of trial by court-martial, authority:  MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6419.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

820126:	Applicant re-enlisted in Marine Corps.

821012:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: knowingly failed to obey U.S. NAVREGS Art 1155, by being certified positive on a urinalysis testing for marijuana.
Awarded forfeiture of $200.00 per month for 2 months, reduced to CPL.  Not appealed.

841026:	Applicant declared a deserter on 841026 having been an unauthorized absentee since 1230, 840925 from WTBN, MCDEC.

841119:	Applicant surrendered to military authorities on 841119 (1200) at WTBN, MCDEC.  

841204:	Applicant, having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Art 27b, requested discharge for the good of the service to escape trial by court- martial.  In the request the applicant noted that his counsel had fully explained the elements of the offenses for which he was charged and that he understood the elements of the offenses.  He further certified a complete understanding of the negative consequences of his actions and that characterization of service would be under other honorable conditions.  The applicant admitted guilt to the following violations of the UCMJ:  Article 86, UA from 840925 until 841119 .

841213:	SJA review determined the case sufficient in law and fact.

841214:	GCMCA [CG, MCDEC] determined that applicant had no potential for further service, that separation in lieu of trial by court-martial was in the best interest of the service, and directed discharge under conditions other than honorable by reason of conduct triable by courts-martial.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 841221 under conditions other than honorable in lieu of trial by court-martial (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 this is a non-decisional issue. The applicant was not happy with the circumstances of his pending assignment and went UA for 54 days rather than to accept his orders.  This is not the conduct one expects from a Marine.  Relief denied.
Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Paragraph 6419, SEPARATION IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT-MARTIAL, of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16C), Change 2, effective 15 May 84 until 26 Jun 89.

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.

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 view DoD Directive 1332.28 and other Decisional Documents by going online at “afls14.jag.af.mil”.  

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
		720 Kennon Street SE Rm 309
		Washington Navy Yard DC  20374-5023