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

 ex-Pvt, USMCR
Docket No. MD02-00122

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 011017, 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 designate a 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 haring in the Washington, D.C. area.  No response received from applicant.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 020620.  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 HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL)/Physical Condition, Not a Disability, authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6203.2.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

1.  On Nov 12, 1986 I was discharged from the Marine Corps Reserve.  My recruiter said that I would get a 2,500 Bonus for signing as a 0311.  He told me that I would get it at the end of basic training.  Once done there I asked about my bonus, they told me that I would get it at my tech school.  When I got to my Tec school they said that I would get it at my duty station.  Finally at my duty station I asked again, I was asked it I got it in writing I said no, they told me that I would not get a bonus.  I asked if I was lied to they said probably.  I was very very upset, my father taught me that a mans word meant everything.  I learned later that a mans word is only as good as the man.  I also learned that if you do not get it in black and white it is worth nothing.  I never thought that a Marine Recruiter would lie.  I told my captain that I would not continue with the reserves, he said that he would give me a general discharge.  I said fine I would not work for an outfit that lied to its people.  I know I acted in haste but I was only 18 at the time, I did not care then.  I am now trying to sign with the Air Force Reserve, but they want an honorable, my recruiter asked me to write to you and get it changed.

Documentation

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

Copy of DD Form 214 (2 copies)
Applicant's General Discharge Certificate dtd 12 Nov 86
Character Reference ltr from V_ & I_ B_ dtd Oct 5, 2001
Character Reference ltr from A_ D. M_, dtd Nov 5, 2001
Character Reference ltr from D_ C. B_, D.V.M. dtd 10/11/01

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   None
	Inactive: None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  840511		Date of Discharge:  861112

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    00  04  22
	Inactive:  02  01  10

Age at Entry:  19			Years Contracted:  6

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  31

Highest Rank:  PFC

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Proficiency:  3.5 (6)			Conduct:  3.5 (6)

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  Rifle Marksman Badge

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

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

UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL)/ Physical Condition, Not a Disability, authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6203.2.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

840511:	Use of marijuana waived upon enlistment.

840626:	Reported for Initial Active Duty for Training (IADT).

841117:	Released IADT, transferred to the Naval Reserve, having served 
4 months 22 days active duty and received characterization of service as Honorable.

841208:	Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct [mandatory participation requirement and consequences of noncompliance].  Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.  

850112:	Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct [poor physical performance exhibited during Det March on 841209].  Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.  

850225:	Applicant contacted by phone about Feb drills and refused to come.

850408:	Letter of intent mailed by certified male #P543342560.

851204:	OIC/Inspector-Instructor, San Bernardino, recommended to CMC, that applicant be involuntary assigned to active duty for 24 months due to non-participation in drills.  Comments:  "The subject named Marine has been afforded the opportunity to regain a satisfactory participation status through the performance of EIOD's as indicated.  However, the subject named Marine has failed to do so."

860311:	Dep CoS for Reserve Affairs requested to Dir, PMD (MMEA) to issue applicant orders to involuntary active duty for the Month of July 1986 for period of 20 months due to unsatisfactory drill participation.

860815:	Applicant notified the changing of the assignment to active duty to August 1986 vice July 1986.

861010:	Command, Naval Medical Command found applicant NOT physical qualified for retention in the Marine Corps Reserve because of 'bilateral patellofemoral compression syndrome'.  Wavier of physical standards IS NOT recommended.

861112:	Applicant discharge by reason of being not physically qualified for retention in the Marine Corps Reserve due to Bilateral patellofemoral Compression Syndrome.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 861112 Under Honorable Conditions (General) due to physical condition, not a disability. (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. A characterization of service of under honorable conditions (general) 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 adverse counseling entries and performance evaluation averages that do not warrant an honorable characterization of service.  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.  While he may feel that his youth and false promises were factors that contributed to his actions, 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. An upgrade to honorable would be inappropriate.  It must be noted that most Marines serve honorably and well and therefore earn honorable discharges.   In fairness to those Marines, commanders and separation authorities are tasked to ensure that undeserving Marines receive no higher characterization than is due.  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.  Relief denied. 

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16C, Change 1, effective 830406 until 890626), paragraph 6203, CONVENIENCE OF THE GOVERNMENT.

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