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

 ex-CWO3, USMC
Docket No. MD01-00823

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 010530, 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 St. Louis, MO.  The applicant did not designate a representative on the DD Form 293.  On July 30, 2001, the applicant was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) does not travel, all hearings are held in the Washington, D.C. area.  Applicant was also informed that the Board first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 011218.  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: GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/RESIGNED (UNACCEPTABLE CONDUCT), authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 4102.3 AND SECNAVINST 1920.6A.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

I pondered whether to handle this matter as an upgrade request, or as a correction.  I decided that it may be difficult to prove an injustice, but much easier to show that I am deserving of an Honorable Discharge. Unfortunately, I do not have access to all of the correspondence pertaining to my release from active duty.  I will proceed with my issues as follows.
I fully intended to go before the "Show Cause" board that was recommended by my command.  My military counsel advised me that I could just resign my commission and receive all benefits with either an Honorable Discharge or a General Discharge (under honorable conditions).  I initially refused this option; I wanted no part of it.  As time went on, and I was stripped of any/all responsibilities that I had worked so hard for - I gave in.  I was told that I had burnt many bridges and that it would be hard to muster all the necessary support for my cause. The decision to resign was a mistake.  As said by my former boss, Major J_ C. H_ Jr., "things could have been handled differently." I should have gone before the "Show Cause" board.  I would likely be holding a pink (retiree) ID card right now, if I had gone before the board. There were several errors made in the handling of my discharge characterization.  First, we asked for the reason to be "Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure" with 1/2 severance pay.  The message came in directing the following: "No Severance Pay, Unacceptable Behavior, and General Discharge." I was able to get 1/2 severance but that was all that I accomplished prior to my short notice release date. I had the opportunity to view all endorsements to my letter of resignation.  Every endorsement recommended approval, and NONE specifically recommended a General Discharge.  It could be argued that these commanders were in favor of an Honorable Discharge. I have paid a hefty price for my mistakes - both financially and personally.  I have served my country well in most regards.  My 17 years of service shouldn't be characterized by a mistake that I readily admitted and stood accounted for. I am enclosing a copy of my current resume.  This may serve to familiarize the board with some of my accomplishments both during and following my career with the United States Marine Corps. I will gladly provide any additional information that boards requests.  Most of my relevant paperwork is in storage in another state. Thank you for your time.
Signed (applicant)

Documentation

Only the applicant's service record was reviewed.  The medical record could not be obtained by the Board.  The applicant only submitted the following document for the Board to consider:

Applicant's Resume

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   USMC		870228 - 890131	To accept appointment
					831209 - 870227	HON
					790605 - 831208	HON
	Inactive: USMCR(J)		780717 - 790604	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Commission:  890201	Date of Discharge:  960802

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:  07  06  02
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  27			

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  69

Highest Rank:  CWO3

Final Officer Performance Evaluation Averages:  All officer performance reports were available to the Board for review.

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  Rifle Expert Badge (5), Pistol Sharpshooter Badge, SSDR (8), NDSM, NASB (1), MUC, GCM (2), CoC, LoA (3), MM

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  CWO3

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/RESIGNED (UNACCEPTABLE CONDUCT), authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 4102.3 AND SECNAVINST 1920.6A

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

920611:	Military Police Report:  Compliant of DUI (refusal)/Disobeying traffic control signal (Civilian charges).

920623:	Suspension/revocation of driving privileges for one year due to refusal to submit to or complete a test to measure the alcohol/drug content in blood.

950804:	CG, 3d MARDIV NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: unauthorized absence; Article 111: DUI; Article 133: conduct unbecoming an officer; and Article 92: dereliction of duty.  Awarded Letter of Reprimand and forfeiture of $800.00 for two months. Not appealed. [EXTRACTED FROM FITNESS REPORT 950713-950803 and 950804-950925].

950911:	Counseled concerning misconduct while TAD to CAMPEN, CA between 26 Apr 95 and 31 May 95 whereby applicant was involved in alcohol related incident and incidents of discreditable nature with both military and civilian authorities.

960329:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86:  unauthorized absence; violation of UCMJ, Article 90:  disobedience of a lawful order from a superior.
Awarded Letter of Reprimand.  Appealed, but denied on 10 May 96. [EXTRACTED FROM FITNESS REPORT 951121-960510, IN WHICH OFFICER SUBMITTED REBUTTAL STATEMENT.]

960702:	CMC directed the applicant's discharge with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) by reason of Resignation (Unacceptable Conduct), not eligible for separation pay.

960709:	CMC advised applicant entitled to half separation pay.

[APPLICANT'S BOI/RESIGNATION REQUEST NOT CONTAINED IN SERVICE RECORD.]

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 960802 with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) due to resignation (unacceptable conduct) (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).

Issue 1.  The Board disagrees with the applicant’s assertion that his overall record warrants an honorable discharge.  Less than honorable conditions is warranted when significant negative aspects of a member's conduct or performance of duty outweigh the positive aspects of the member's military record.  The applicant’s service as a commissioned warrant officer was marred by award of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for offenses triable by court-martial on two occasions and an adverse counseling entry on another occasion.  The applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflects his willful disobedience of the orders and directives which regulate good order and discipline in naval service, and falls short of that required for an honorable characterization of service.  An upgrade to honorable would be inappropriate.

The applicant’s discharge characterization accurately reflects his service to his country.  Normally, to permit relief, an error or injustice must have existed during the period of commissioned service in question.  No such error or injustice was discerned by the Board during the applicant’s commissioned service.  Additionally, 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.  However, the NDRB is authorized to consider outstanding post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge, 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.  Verifiable proof of any post-service accomplishments must be provided in order for the applicant to claim post-service conduct and behavior as a reason to upgrade a less than Honorable discharge.  Evidence of continuing educational pursuits, an employment record, documentation of community service, certification of non-involvement with civil authorities and proof of his not using drugs, are examples of verifiable documents that should have been provided to receive consideration for relief, based on post-service conduct.  The applicant did not provide sufficient documentation to warrant an upgrade to his discharge.  He is reminded that he remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of his discharge.  The applicant can provide additional documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments at that time.  Legal representation at a personal appearance hearing is highly recommended but not required.  Relief denied.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Chapter 4, Paragraph 4102 of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16E, effective 18 Aug 1995), PROCESSING FOR SEPARATION.

B.  The Secretary of the Navy Instruction 1920.6A of 21 Nov 1983 (Administrative Separation of Officers), establishes policies, standards and procedures for the administrative separation of navy and Marine Corps officers from the naval service in accordance with Title 10, United States Code and DoD Directive 1332.30 of 15 Oct 81.

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 “afls10.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