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

 ex-Pvt, USMC
Docket No. MD00-00249

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 991214, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable.  The applicant requested a personal appearance hearing before a Traveling Panel closest to Whiteville, N.C.  The applicant did not designate a representative on the DD Form 293.  In the acknowledgement letter to the applicant, he was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 000824.  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, authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6210.2.

The NDRB did note an administrative error on the original DD Form 214.  Block 12c, Net Active Service This Period, should read:  “01  06  03” vice “01  08  01”.  The original DD Form 214 should be corrected or reissued as appropriate. 

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues (verbatim)

1.  I would like to have my discharge upgraded from Under Other Than Honorable Condition to Honorable Discharge for purposes of re-enlistment.

Documentation

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

Letter of Recommendation from Senator R.C. S_, Jr. dtd Dec 3, 1999

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:    None
	Inactive:  USMCR(J)		940521 - 941031	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  941101		Date of Discharge:  960503

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:  01  06  03
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  4 

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  32

Highest Rank:  PFC

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Proficiency:  4.15 (4)		Conduct:  3.95 (4)

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NDSM 

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority:  MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6210.2.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

950213:	Counseled concerning use of sick call, with non-verifiable illness, to avoid training.  Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.

950629:	Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct [failure to be at the appointed place of duty on time, specifically on 21 and 29 Jun 94, late reporting to work at the Motor Transport Section].  Prior to these two incidents, applicant counseled concerning his continued tardiness.  Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.

951102:	Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct [violation of UCMJ Article 86, Article 123 - unauthorized absence, forgery, specifically on 21 and 29 June 94].  Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.

951103:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (2 Specs):  Spec 1 - failed to go at the time prescribed to FC 360 at 0600, 30 Sep 95; Spec 2 - unauthorized absence from0700, 951031 to 0900, 951102; violation of UCMJ Article 123: forged 2 checks belonging to LCpl B.D. C_ in the amount of approximately $100.00.
	Award:  30 days correction custody, forfeiture of $482 per month for 2 months, reduction to E-1.  No indication of appeal in the record.

951206:	Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct [failure to be at appointed place of duty on time, specifically failed to report to work until 0720 on 941206].  Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.

951213:	Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct [violation of UCMJ, Article 86, specifically on 8 DEC 95, 10 minutes late for the Battalion Hump].  Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.

960108:	Counseled concerning continuing and frequent misconduct, specifically 2 incidents of UA (pg 11 entries dtd 941206 and 941213, and violating SIQ on 951218 by running errands out in town.  Advised being processed for administrative separation due to minor disciplinary infractions.

960424:	SJA review determined the case sufficient in law and fact.

960425:	GCMCA [COM II MEF, MFL, Camp Lejuene, NC] advised the CMC that the applicant's discharge was directed and applicant will be discharged under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to minor disciplinary infractions.
[ADMIN DISCHARGE PACKAGE NOT CONTAINED IN SERVICE RECORD, ONLY THE SEPARATION AUTHORITY AND SJA'S LTR.]

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT 
REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 960503 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to minor disciplinary infractions (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 response to applicant’s issue 1, there is no requirement or law that grants recharacterization solely on the issue of trying to re-enlist and this issue does not serve to provide a foundation upon which the Board can grant relief. 

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 P1900.16E), effective 18 Aug 95until Present. 

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 123, for forgery.

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