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

 ex-1sLT, USMCR
Docket No. MD02-00035

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 010924, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable.  The applicant requested a personal appearance discharge review.  The applicant listed the Veterans of Foreign Wars as the representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A personal appearance discharge review hearing was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 020502.  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 at the time of issue.  The Board’s vote was four to one that the character of the discharge shall not change.  The discharge shall remain: UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL)/Unacceptable conduct (other), authority: MARCORSEPMAN, PAR. 4106. 

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

The applicant requested relief based upon his post-service conduct. 

Documentation

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

Letter from applicant, 2 May 2002
Letters of recommendation (4x)
Letter of appreciation, 10 December, 2001
Quality Advice certificate, 2000
Advanced Advisor Group certification, December 1999
Mercury Award
Certificate of Achievement, 26 June 1996

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: USMCR		880820 - 890515	To accept appointment
	Active:   USMCR(OCS)	880613 - 880819	Transfer to reserves
	Inactive: USMCR(C)		880310 - 880612	To report OCS
		   USAR		860211 - 880309	HON
	Active:   USAR		850305 - 860210	HON
Inactive: USAR		830208 - 850304	To report ACDU
	Active    USA			800208 - 830207	HON
		   USAR		790821 - 800207	To report ACDU

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Commission:  890516	Date of Discharge:  930625

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:  04  01  10
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  27			Years Contracted:  6

Education Level:  16	

Highest Rank:  1stLT

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

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  LoA, ACM, Rifle Marksmanship Badge, CoA(3), GCM (Army), Pistol Expert Badge, OSSR(Army), NDSM 

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None 

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

UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL)/Unacceptable Conduct (other), authority:  MARCORSEPMAN Par. 4106.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

930122:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 107:  one specification of making a false official statement to Major R_ S_, to wit:  that you had ridden your motorcycle to and from Little Rock Air Force Base.
Awarded letter of reprimand and forfeiture of $1150.00 per month for 2 months.  Elected to submit a statement.

930122:	Letter of reprimand issued to applicant.

930207:	Report of applicant's NJP to CMC.  CG, 2d MAW recommended to CMC that applicant not remain on active duty without admin separation proceedings, and strongly recommended that a Board of Officers be convened in this case.

930217:	Applicant submitted a rebuttal requesting retention.

930610:	Commander, MCF, Atlantic, recommended to CMC applicant not be retained and that he be discharged under honorable conditions (general). 

930713:	CG, MCRSC advised CMC that applicant was discharged on 930626 by reason of Unacceptable Conduct, Separation Code of BNC1.

950320:	NDRB documentary record review Docket Number MD94-01525 conducted.  Determination:  discharge proper and equitable; relief not warranted.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 930625 under honorable conditions (general) due to unacceptable conduct (other) (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 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.  The Board found the applicant did not provide sufficient documentation to mitigate the circumstances surrounding his separation and warrant an upgrade to his discharge.  Relief is therefore denied.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Paragraph 4106 of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16D), effective 27 Jun 89 until 17 Aug 95, VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT OR RESIGNATION.  

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