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

 ex-PFC, USMC
Docket No. MD01-01203

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 010920, 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. In the acknowledgement letter the applicant was informed that he was approaching the 15 year point for review by this Board and was encouraged to attend a personal appearance hearing in the Washington, D. C. area.
Applicant did not respond.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 020417.  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 CONDITIONS OTHER THAN HONORABLE/Separation in lieu of trial by court-martial, authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6419.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

1.  I am submitting my application for a discharge upgrade, on the grounds that I don't believe my case was handled properly by myself or the military.  I'm not trying to excuse my conduct by any means.  I was only twenty years old at the time and very immature.
I have been ashamed of my conduct every since this happened, I have asked myself what went wrong many times, for the first year, I was a proud and motivated young Marine.
I had complained many times about not being able to sleep in our barracks.  Do to excessive noise at all hours of the night.  The only way to get to sleep was to drink you there (alcohol).  You must understand these are open barracks, their are no walls or dividers (like boot camp) my inability to sleep or rest was driving me insane and getting me into trouble.  I understand that I should have used a different Avenue of approach on this entire issue, but no one seemed to really care, that this is just the way it is.  The Truth of the matter B, I could not deal with it and they were not going to do anything about it.  I was trapped in a world of unrest, and I had to get out or go crazy.  I just wish I could have found another way.  Inclosing I would like to apologize for my conduct, this has haunted me for many years.

Documentation

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

Copy of DD Form 214

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   None
	Inactive: USMCR(J)		840601 - 850523	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  850524		Date of Discharge:  861010

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    01  04  17
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  19			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  44

Highest Rank:  PFC

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Proficiency:  4.4 (3)			Conduct:  4.2 (3)

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  None

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  8

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

UNDER CONDITIONS OTHER THAN HONORABLE/Separation in lieu of trial by court-martial, authority:  MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6419.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

860512:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86:
Specification: Unauthorized absence 0900, 6Apr86 to 2200, 11Apr86 (5 days/surrendered).
Awarded forfeiture of $358.00 per month for 2 months, correctional custody for 30 days.  Correctional custody suspended for 6 months.  Not appealed.

860806:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86:
Specification: Unauthorized absence from 0845, 31Jul86 to 0200, 4Aug86 (3 days/surrendered).
Awarded forfeiture of $100.00 per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duties for 14 days.  Restriction and extra duty suspended for 6 months.  Not appealed.

860806:	Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct.  [Established pattern of misconduct, i.e., unauthorized absence.]  Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.

860807:	Vacate suspended correctional custody for 30 days awarded at CO's NJP dated 12Jun86.

860911:	Applicant, having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Art 27b, requested discharge for the good of the service to escape trial by court- martial.  In the request the applicant noted that his counsel had fully explained the elements of the offenses for which he was charged and that he understood the elements of the offenses.  He further certified a complete understanding of the negative consequences of his actions and that characterization of service would be under other honorable conditions.  The applicant admitted guilt to the following violations of the UCMJ, Article 86 (2 specs): Go from appointed place of duty on 1310, 6Aug86, to wit:  correctional custody facility and failed to go at time prescribed to appointed place of duty on 0730, 8Aug86, to wit: morning PT formation.
 
860917:	SJA review determined the case sufficient in law and fact.

861002:	GCMCA [Commanding General, 2d Marine Division, FMF] determined that applicant had no potential for further service, that separation in lieu of trial by court-martial was in the best interest of the service, and directed discharge under conditions other than honorable by reason of conduct triable by courts-martial.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 861010 under conditions other than honorable in lieu of trial by court-martial (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 found that the applicant’s age, education level, and test scores qualified him for enlistment.  While he may feel that his inability to rest was a factor that contributed to his actions, the record clearly reflects his willful disregard for the requirements of military discipline and demonstrated that he was unfit for further service.  The record is devoid of evidence that the applicant was not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions. 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 documentation to warrant an upgrade to his discharge.   Relief denied.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Paragraph 6419, SEPARATION IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT-MARTIAL, of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16C), Change 2, effective 15 May 84 until 26 Jun 89.
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 86, unauthorized absence.

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