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

 ex-Pvt, USMC 
Docket No. MD00-00068

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 991018, 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 000614.  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.  When I enlisted I scored high on the test score to get in.  I had I gaurantee contract that stated I was going to be in 0-1 Administration Computer. That was the field of choice that I wanted.  After basic training they put me in infantry.  All I wanted was to be in 0-1 Administration.    

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)		841026 - 850204	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  850205		Date of Discharge:  860922

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:  00  07  07
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  19			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  30

Highest Rank:  Pvt

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Proficiency:  4.4 (1)		Conduct:  4.3(1)

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  Rifle Marksman Badge 

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  358 

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:

841026:	Applicant signed DD Form 1966/7 indicating unrestricted enlistment option, i.e. no MOS guaranteed.

850626:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: UA 0100, 850513 to 1500, 850606 (24days).
Awarded forfeiture of $100.00 per month for 1 months, restriction and extra duty for 20 days (suspended for 6 months).  Not appealed.

850919:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: UA 2100, 850623 to 0930, 850715 (22days).
Awarded forfeiture of $200.00 per month for 2 months, restriction for 60 days (suspended for 6 months).  Not appealed.

860128:	Applicant declared a deserter on 850923 having been an unauthorized absentee since 0700, 850923 from STUDAMINCO, ITS, MCB, CAMPEN.

860808:	Applicant apprehended by civil authorities on 860804 (0140) at Ann Arbor, MI.  Returned to military control 860804 (0140), (312 days UA).  Delivered to STUDAMINCO, ITS.

860822:	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: Did on 850923 without authority absent himself from his unit, to wit: Student Admin Company, Infantry Training School, Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton, California, and did remain until apprehended on or about 860804.   

860908:	Assistant Chief of Staff, Staff Judge Advocate review determined the case sufficient in law and fact.

860910:	GCMCA [Commanding General, Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton, California] 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 860922 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 that the applicant did not enlist for a specific option as he alleges, verified by his DD Form 1066/7.   Relief Denied

The Board further found that in the applicant’s statement of 22 Aug 86, he stated that he is unable to adjust to military life and if retained would continue to be a disciplinary problem.  He had received 2 NJP’s and was pending a special court-martial, all for UA’s totaling 358 days. 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, 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 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