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

 ex-PFC, USMC
Docket No. MD02-00036

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 010925, 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 020529.  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 (verbatim)

1.  I feel that if my discharged is upgrade and I am allowed back in the service that I won’t make the same mistakes.  The first time I got in trouble I felt like certain people within the unit were out to get me, instead of trying to give me the proper guidance.  I have now been out of the Marine Corps 11 months and I feel like that is the only place that I can make a difference.  So I write to the board and ask can you grant me the chance to have the colors of a United States Marine and represent my country and me to the finest and I guarantee that I will not let you down because if you ask anyone in my unit they will tell you that I was very good at my job.  So please give me that chance to show that I can represent my country the way that it is supposed to be representing with honor, courage, and commitment.  Semper Fi

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)		980529 - 980603	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  980604		Date of Discharge:  001011

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    02  04  08
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  17			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  53

Highest Rank:  PFC

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Proficiency:  4.2 (Not incl. 3.0 separation)	Conduct:  4.0 (Not incl. 2.0 separation)

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  None

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  28

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:

990525:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86:
Specification: Unauthorized absence from 1500, 23Apr99 to 0730, 24Apr99. No further information found in service record.  [Extracted from CO's letter dated 21Sep00.]

990930:	Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct.  [Intentionally uttering worthless checks.]  Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.  [Extracted from CO's letter dated 21Sep00.]

991105:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 91:
Specification: Disobeyed a lawful order from an NCO. No further information found in service record.  [Extracted from CO's letter dated 21Sep00.]

991108:	Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct.  [Insubordinate conduct towards an NCO.]  Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.  [Extracted from CO's letter dated 21Sep00.]

000316:	Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct.  [Apprehended by military authorities after insubordination towards an MP during a routine traffic stop.]  Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.  [Extracted from CO's letter dated 21Sep00.]

000831:	Applicant convicted in civil court for an assault on a female.  No further information found in record.

000831:	Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct.  [Being incarcerated by civilian authorities for the offense of an assault on a female.]  Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.  [Extracted from CO's letter dated 21Sep00.]

000901:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86:
Specification: Absent from 0731, 000629 to 0730, 28Jul00 (28 days).
No further information found in service record.  [Extracted from CO's letter dated 21Sep00.]

000915:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.

000920:	Applicant scheduled for civil court for eleven worthless checks worth more than $2,000.00.

000920:	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.

000921:	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 for the pattern of misconduct as follows: formal counseling (Page 11 entry per paragraph 6105 of the reference) on 990930 for financial irresponsibility (bad checks), on 000316 disrespect to a military police Marine during a traffic stop, and on 000831 for civilian conviction for an assault on a female; nonjudicial punishment convictions on 990521 for unauthorized absence, on 991105 for willful disobedience of a lawful order made by a non commissioned officer, on 000901 for unauthorized absence. 

000928:	SJA review determined the case sufficient in law and fact.

001004:	GCMCA [Commanding General] 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 001011 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).

Issue 1. The Board found that the applicant’s age, education level, and test scores qualified him for enlistment.  While he may feel that a lack of proper guidance 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.

Concerning a change in reenlistment code, the NDRB has no authority to change reenlistment codes or make recommendations to permit reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Naval Service or any other branch of the Armed Forces.  Neither a less than fully honorable discharge nor an unfavorable “RE” code is, in itself, a bar to reenlistment. A request for waiver is normally done only during the processing of a formal application for enlistment through a recruiter.  Relief is therefore 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 31 Jan 97 until Present. 

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; Article 91, failure to obey a lawful order from an NCO.

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