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

ex-LCpl, USMC
Docket No. MD02-00341

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 020129, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions.  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 020912.  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/Conduct triable by courts-martial (request for discharge for the good of the service), authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6419.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as submitted

1.  The charges brought against me we due to my roommate bouncing some checks after she had given me her ATM card & pin number to get some money out that was owed to me.  But I had no prove that she gave it to me.  It was my word against hers and with me having previous money problems I saw no need to argue.  However, my discharge has since cause me problems with getting jobs.  If it is possible I would like to have it upgraded at least to General.

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)		890328 - 890516	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  890517		Date of Discharge:  930607

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    04  00  21
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  21			Years Contracted:  6

Education Level:  15			AFQT:  92

Highest Rank:  LCpl

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Proficiency:  4.6 (10)		Conduct:  4.5 (10)

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  MM, NDSM, NUC, SSDR, GCM

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Conduct triable by courts-martial (request for discharge for the good of the service), authority:  MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6419.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

910108:	Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct.  [Applicant has had reoccurring problems with insufficient funds in her checking account.  She also wrote checks on a closed account.  When ordered to attend a class on 17 Dec 90 for financial management, she was UA.]  Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.

910325:	Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct.  Effective 910325 she is hereby assigned to the Marine Corps Physical Conditioning Program, to remain on the program until she has successfully passed three PFT's.  Muster with the SPT Platoon 3 times weekly, Mon, Wed and Fri.  Corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.

930426:	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 her counsel had fully explained the elements of the offenses for which she was charged and that she understood the elements of the offenses.  She further certified a complete understanding of the negative consequences of her actions and that characterization of service would be under other than honorable conditions.  The applicant admitted guilt to the following violations of the UCMJ, Article 121 (7 specifications): (1) Steal one Navy Federal Credit Union automatic teller machine card of a value less than $100.00, the property of a LCpl, on 8 Apr 92, (2) Steal $200.00 U.S. currency, the property of North Carolina National Bank, on 15 Apr 92, (3) Steal $50.00 U.S. currency, the property of Cherry Point Federal Credit Union, on 16 Apr 92, (4) Steal $200.00 U.S. currency, the property of Branch Banking and Trust, on 1 May 92, (5) Steal (unreadable amount) U.S. currency, the property of First Union National Bank, on 4 May 92, (6) Steal $150.00 U.S. currency, the property of First Union National Bank, on 4 May 92, (7) Steal $10.00 U.S. currency, the property of North Carolina National Bank, on 8 May 92.

930601:	SJA review determined the case sufficient in law and fact.

930601:	GCMCA [Commanding General, 2d Marine Aircraft Wing, USMC Forces Atlantic, Cherry Point, NC] determined that the 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 other than honorable conditions by reason of conduct triable by court-martial.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 930607 under other than honorable conditions 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 has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment opportunities as requested in the issue.  The Board’s charter limits its review to a determination on the propriety and equity of the discharge.  In the applicant’s case the Board could discern no impropriety or inequity and therefore considered the applicant’s discharge was proper and equitable.  The applicant admitted guilt to the charges that were pending a special court-martial and further certified a complete understanding of the negative consequences of her actions and that her characterization of service would be under other than honorable conditions.  Relief denied.

The applicant’s discharge characterization accurately reflects her service to her country.  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.  Relief is not warranted.

She is reminded that she remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of her discharge.  The applicant can provide additional documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments at that time.  Representation at a personal appearance hearing is recommended but not required.  

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 P1900.16D), effective 27 Jun 89 until 17 Aug 95.

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 121, larceny.

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 “afls14.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