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

 ex-Pvt, USMC
Docket No. MD00-00359

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 000121, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under 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 000907.  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-Pattern of misconduct (administrative discharge board required but waived), authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6210.3.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

1.  I am trying to clean up my past so I can have a better future.  I would like to start a family soon and I am working towards starting my life fresh.  Having a discharge of less than honorable has always haunted me when trying to get a better job than just a laborer. It has also been a sore spot within my family and would like to have a fresh start.  Thank you for your consideration.  Sincerely

Documentation

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

None

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   None
	Inactive: USMCR(J)		890705 - 890724	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  890725		Date of Discharge:  920410

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    02  08  16
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  17			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  78

Highest Rank:  LCpl

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Proficiency:  4.2 (10)		Conduct:  3.9 (10)

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  Certificate of Appreciation, MUC, NDSM, SSDR with 1 Star

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  XX 

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

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

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

900820:	Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct.  [Irresponsibility and immaturity dealing with personal financial matters.]   Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.

900911:	Applicant informed eligible but not recommended for promotion to LCpl due to irresponsibility with financial matters.

910402:	Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct.  [Failure to maintain uniforms in accordance with MCO P1020.28 and MCO P1020.34 wall locker and uniforms were inspected on two separate occasions, 910218 and 910324.  On each occasion uniforms were found to be in an unsatisfactory state.]  Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.

910517:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86:
Specification: Failed to go at the time prescribed to the S-1 Bldg 550 on 1300, 10May91.
Awarded extra duties for 30 days, reduction to PFC. Extra duty for 15 days and reduction suspended for 6 mos.  Not appealed.

910722:	Vacate suspended extra duty and reduction awarded at NJP dated 910517.

910724:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92:
Specification: Fail to obey a lawful general regulation on 0446, 15Jul91, to wit: MARCORBASEJAPANO P11240.1A, dated 3May90, by wrongfully driving without a United States Forces Japan drivers license.
Awarded forfeiture of $422.00 per month for 1 month, restriction and 
extra duties for 30 days.  Forfeiture suspended for 3 months.  Not appealed.

911113:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92:
Specification: Violate SqdnO P11000.8 by allowing female visitors in closed room.
Awarded forfeiture of $375.00 per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duties for 30 days, reduction to Pvt.  Not appealed.

911218:	Summary Court-Martial.
	Charge I: violation of the UCMJ, Article 134:
	Specification: Breaking restriction on 21Nov91.
	Finding: to Charge I and the specification thereunder, guilty.
	Sentence:  Forfeiture of $502.00, confinement for 30 days, restriction for 30 days.  Forfeiture of $251.00 pay per month for 1 month and confinement for 15 days and restriction for 15 days suspended for 6 months.
	CA action 911231: Sentence approved and ordered executed.

920128:	Applicant request for general under honorable conditions discharge.

920316:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.

920316:  	Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights except the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation.

920316:	Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.  The factual basis for this recommendation was his demonstrated pattern of misconduct.  Between 30 May 1991 and 13 November 1991, Pvt (applicant) has received three NJP's; two violations of Article 86 and one violation of Article 92, dated 30 May 1991, 24 July 1991 and 13 November 1991, respectively.  On 18 December 1991, Pvt (applicant) also received a Summary Court-Martial for violation of Article 134 as a result of him breaking restriction which was imposed during the 13 November 1991, office hours.  In addition, from August 1990 to April 1991, Pvt (applicant) received two official (page 11) counseling entries for financial irresponsibility, and failure to maintain his wall locker/uniforms.  Pvt (applicant) also was officially counseled on 11 September 1990, that he was eligible but not recommended for promotion due to his irresponsibility with financial matters.  By his actions and inabilities to conform to the high standards of the United States Marine Corps, I strongly feel Pvt 
(applicant) has demonstrated that he has no potential for further service. 

920325:	SJA review determined the case sufficient in law and fact.

920326:	GCMCA [Commanding General, 1st Marine Aircraft Wing] directed the applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions 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 920410 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct (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).

The applicant introduced no decisional issues for consideration by the Board.

The following is provided for the applicant’s edification.  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 civilian life subsequent to leaving the service.  Normally, to permit relief, an error or injustice must be found to have existed during the period of enlistment in question.  However, the NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. 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.  In determining whether a case merits a change based on post-service conduct, the NDRB considers the length of time since discharge, the applicant's record of community service, employment, conduct, educational achievements, and family relationships.  The applicant's efforts need to be more encompassing than those provided.  The applicant should have produced evidence of continuing educational pursuits, a verifiable employment record, documentation of community service, certification of non-involvement with civil authorities and proof of financial responsibility in order for consideration for clemency based on post-service conduct.  At this time the applicant has not provided sufficient documentation of good character and conduct.  Therefore no relief will be granted.
 
The applicant is encouraged to continue with his pursuits and 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.  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 134.

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