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

 ex-PFC, USMC
Docket No. MD01-00984

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 010725, 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 020215.  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. 6210.3.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

1.  The reason my discharge should be changed is: I wasn't given any other options than to take a court martial and get a BCD or take NJP and an OTH discharge.  The option to stay in the military and add my missed outs to remaining time was not given an option another reason is my wife's grandmother wrote a letter to the commandant of the marine corps that was also used as part of my reason for discharge.

Documentation

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

Copies of DD Form 214 (3)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   USMC		None
	Inactive: USMCR(J)		970203 - 980401	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  980402		Date of Discharge:  000608

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    02  02  07
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  20			Years Contracted:  4 

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  65

Highest Rank:  LCpl

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Proficiency:  3.8 (8)			Conduct:  3.8 (8)

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  Rifle Expert Badge, GCM

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  108

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority:  MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6210.3.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

990119:	UA 0700, 990119 to 0700, 990121(2days/S).

990122:	Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct.  [Being U.A. and disobeying a lawful order, by your IOC and SNOC, Specifically, being U.A. from 0720 on 990119 to 0100 on 990121, you also failed to call your section as instructed by your OIC and SNCOIC, if there were any difficulties in reporting on time].  Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued

990921:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Absent himself from his appointed place of duty 0545-0555, 990826 to wit: H&S Co, Comm PLT, BLT 1/4.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $260.00 per month for 1 month.  Not appealed.

000419:	Pretrial confinement 000419 to 000515.

000516:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Without authority absent himself from his appointed place of duty to wit: H&S Company, 2d Battalion, 4th Marine 0731, 000104 until apprehension on 000414 (104days/A).
	Award:  Forfeiture of $563.00 pay per month for 2 month, restriction and extra duty for 19 days, reduction to E-2.  Not appealed.

000516:	Counseled this date per 6105 that the Commanding Officer 2d Bn 4th Marines has begun proceeding to separate me from the United States Marine Corps for misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.

000516:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.

000516:	Applicant advised of his rights and having elected to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights.

000516:	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 your general lack of discipline, and lack of maturity, poor attitude, lack of responsibility for your actions, two U.A. offenses and your failure to adapt to Marine Corps standards throughout your career. 

000524:	SJA review determined the case sufficient in law and fact [Extracted from CO's message dated 000516].

000530:	GCMCA [Commanding General, 1st Marine Division] 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 000608 under other than honorable conditions 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).

Issue 1.  The Board found no inequity or impropriety in the fact that the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment and an administrative discharge rather than accept trial at a special court-martial.  A characterization of service of under other 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 was marred by award of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for offenses triable by court-martial on two occasions and adverse counseling entries on other occasions.  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 Board found no evidence that the alleged letter written to the Commandant of the Marine Corps unfairly influenced the separation authority’s decision in the applicant’s case. Relief denied.

The applicant’s discharge characterization accurately reflects his service to his country.  The discharge was proper and equitable.  Normally, to permit relief, an error or injustice must have existed during the period of enlistment in question.  No such error or injustice occurred during the applicant’s enlistment.  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.  Paragraph 6210, MISCONDUCT, of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16E), effective 18 Aug 95 until Present. 

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 “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