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

 ex-PFC, USMC
Docket No. MD00-00091

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 991019, 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 designate a representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 000622.  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 HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL)/Misconduct – Pattern of misconduct (administrative discharge board required but waived), authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6210.3.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

1.  Clemency is warranted because it is an injustice for me to continue to suffer the adverse consequences of a bad discharge.
2.  My average conduct and efficiency ratings/behavior and proficient marks were generally above average.
3.  I received various awards and decorations.
4.  I had combat service.
5.  I have been a good citizen since discharge.
6.  My record of NJPs indicates only minor offenses.
7.  My use of alcohol impaired my ability to serve.
8.  My discharge was improper because the command did not follow discharge regulations.

Documentation

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

Copy of DD Form 214 (2 copies)
Applicant's letter to Members of the Board dtd Aug 28, 1999
Applicant's NAM Citation 
Applicant's letter dtd 16 Feb 93 requesting to attend Level III and finish his contract
5 Statements in behalf of applicant concerning the Oct 30, 1992 incident
SSGT S_ J. W_'s Report of Offense dtd2 Nov 92
Applicant's Report of Offense dtd 27 Jan 93
Applicant's Statement concerning the Oct 30, 1992 incident
Character Reference letter from K_ J. A_ dtd Oct 5, 1999
Character Reference letter from S_ E_ dtd Sep 30, 1999

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:    None
	Inactive:  USMCR(J)		871229 - 880802	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  880803		Date of Discharge:  930507

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:  04  09  05
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry: 17	 Years Contracted:  6

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  81

Highest Rank:  LCpl

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Proficiency:  4.3 (13)		Conduct:  4.2 (13)

Military Decorations:  NAM

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  CAR, NUC (2stars), MUC (1star), NDSM, SWASM(1star)

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

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

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

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

900504:	Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct [continued failure to be at section on time].  Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.

900604:	Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct [not being at his appointed place of duty, barracks 574 working party on 21 May 1990]. 

901002:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 91:  disrespectful to Cpl M_ by saying to him, "F--- no and F--- you, I won't do it."
Awarded forfeiture of $196.00 per month for 10 month, 7 days Correctional Custody Unit (suspended for a period of 6 months).  Not appealed.

901009:	Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct [violation of UCMJ Article 91 - disrespect to an NCO].  Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued

920103:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 91 (2 specs):  willfully disobeyed order of lstSgt S_ to go to room and sleep off affect of alcohol, 2130, 920101 and disrespectful to lstSgt S_ by mocking him as he read Article 31, 0250, 920101. Awarded forfeiture of $422.00 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duties for 45 days (40 days restriction and 45 days extra duty suspended for 6 months), reduction to E-2.  Not appealed.

920106:	Counseled for continued misconduct and poor performance.  Specific recommendations for corrective action are to adhere to the policies and procedures of the U.S. Marine Corps and obey all orders given to you by your superiors.  Sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued

921130:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 90: on 30 Oct 92 willfully disobeyed 2ndLt C_'s order to "sit down and chill out for awhile"; violation of UCMJ Article 91: on 30 Oct 92, willfully disobeyed an order of SSgt W_ to mind his manners; violation of UCMJ Article 117: on 30 Oct 92, wrongfully used provoking words "Hit me, go ahead" or words to that effect to SSgt W_; violation of UCMJ, Article 128:  on 30 Oct 92, assaulted SSgt W_ by striking at him with his hand; violation of UCMJ, Article 134:  on 30 Oct 92, was drunk and disorderly.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $400 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to E-2.  Appealed 921123.

921216:	Medical Evaluation:  22 year old with 4 years history of heavy drinking.  Referred from CSACC for medical eval.  Pt admits to drinking 6 - 12 beers 3-5 days per week, including working out.  Pt drinks alone to overcome emotional problems.  Pt denies DUI or blackouts but has had several NJPs and reduction in rank twice due to alcohol incidents.  Denies withdrawal effect other than hangover, for which he will drink to relieve this symptom. 	Assessment:  Alcohol dependence
	Plan:  1 - Recommend Level III rehab, 2 - Recommend AA meetings three times per week.

930115:	Applicant offered but denied VA's alcohol rehab treatment in conjunction with discharge.

930209:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under honorable conditions (general) by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.

930216:	Applicant advised of his rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights except the right to submit a rebuttal statement and the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation.

930216:	Applicant submits rebuttal statement.

930222:	Commanding officer recommended discharge under honorable conditions (general) by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.  The factual basis for this recommendation was, during his current enlistment, PFC (Applicant) has incurred three nonjudicial punishments and has been the subject of four derogatory page 11 counseling entries.

930408:	SJA review determined the case sufficient in law and fact.

930409:	GCMCA [CG, I Marine Expeditionary Force (Rear), FMF] directed the applicant's discharge Under Honorable Conditions (General) by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 930507 Under Honorable Conditions (General) for misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct (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).

The Board concurs with the applicant’s issues 2,3,4,6, and 7.  However, these are non-decisional issues.  Relief denied.

The Board disagrees with issue 1.  The applicant did not serve honorable.  He had 3 NJP’s and 4 derogatory page 11 entries within his enlistment, and does not warrant an Honorable discharge.

In issue 5, the applicant failed to provide sufficient documentation to support his claim that he has been a good citizen since his discharge.  Relief denied.

In issue 8, the Board disagrees with the applicant.  His command correctly processed the discharge.  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 needs to being provide proof of his sobriety at that review.  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.  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 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