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

 ex-Pvt, USMC
Docket No. MD02-00572

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 020311, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to entry level separation or uncharacterized.  The Applicant requested a personal appearance discharge review before a traveling panel closet to Des Moines, IA.  The Applicant did not designate a representative on the DD Form 293.  In the acknowledgement letter to the Applicant, she was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) does not travel, all hearings are held in the Washington, D.C. area.  The NDRB also advised that the board first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 021217.  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. 6210.2.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as submitted

1.  On July 8, 1997, the Commanding Officer of Financial Management School at Marine Corps Service Support Schools on Camp Lejeune, NC, initiated a request to discharge me from the United States Marine Corps, at which time I had six months and one day of active service in the military.  As documented in the first endorsement to that letter in the last sentence of paragraph 3, I had already been in the process of separating with the occurrence of my final (discharge) physical.  Had the command not willfully delayed the processing of this recommendation and request for discharge, I would have been within the six month active duty window for an entry-level separation per MARCORESPMAN (See document 2).  With three non-judicial punishments received within a six month time frame, a discharge is not unwarranted, however, I feel it was maliciousness on the part of the command to discharge me under other than honorable conditions.  I find it inconsistent of the command to have awarded me an award for superior achievement and then to award separation proficiency and conduct markings of 1.9/2.9.  Since separation, I have become a good citizen as represented by my acceptance into the national honor society of Phi Upsilon Omicron as well as volunteer service with the Family and Childrens' Counsel of Black Hawk County, Iowa.  I feel that the command abused its authority when deciding to wait the additional time necessary so that they could not separate me under entry-level/uncharacterized conditions and that they were attempting to make an example of me to instill fear into other students at MCSSS.

Documentation

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

Copy of DD Form 214
MARCORSEPMAN (Pages 6-6, 6-21, 6-22 and 6-31 and 6-32)
Certificate of Superior Achievement, Financial Management School, dtd 26 Jun 97
Admin Discharge Package (11 pages)
Applicant's Enlistment Contract (3 pages)
Service Record Book entries (6 pages)
Certificate of Marriage
Certificate of Birth of Applicant's Daughter
Certificate of Completion, Key Volunteer Network Training, dtd Nov 99
Certificate of Initiation, Phi Upsilon Omicron, dtd Oct 13, 2001
Character Reference letter from J_ P_, M.A., Family & Children's Council dtd Nov 30, 2001
Character Reference letter from W_ M_ F_, Ph.D, CFLE, Univ. Northern Iowa dtd Jan 18, 2002
Applicant's Spouse letter dtd Feb 10, 2002
PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   None
	Inactive: USMCR(J)		960808 - 970106	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  970107		Date of Discharge:  970730

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:  00  06  24
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  26			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  66

Highest Rank:  Pvt

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Proficiency:  3.1 (2)		Conduct:  3.5 (2)

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  Rifle Marksmanship Badge

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority:  MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6210.2.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

970515:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: having knowledge of MCSSSO P5000.lL and being an entry level student, violated the same by wrongfully engaging in purely social dealings with Sgt D. G. W_, permanent personnel.
Awarded forfeiture of $194.00 per month for 1 month (suspended for 6 months), restriction for 14 days.  Not appealed.

970515:	Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct. [Violation of Camp Johnson regulations while being an entry level student by wrongfully having social dealing with Sgt D. G. W_, permanent personnel at Bks M-622, 2040, 970513.]  Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.

970604:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 90:  At the Cherry Point Exchange, 1400, 970531, willfully disobeyed Captain E_'s command to have absolutely no dealings or association with Sgt W_.
	Awarded forfeiture of $400 per month for 2 months, restriction for 60 days (restriction for 15 days to limits of MCSSS suspended for 6 months).  Not appealed.

970604:	Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct. [Violation of a command given by the Commanding Officer on 970515 to have absolutely no social dealings or association with Sgt W_.  On 970531, Applicant was seen at Main Exchange holding hands with Sgt W_.]  Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.

970618:	Restriction without suspension from duty for 15 days imposed and suspended on 970604 for period of 6 months hereby vacated and punishment is ordered executed.

970625:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 91:  at FMScol, Bks M-434, Rm 115, 970612 at 0013, willfully disobeyed order from 1stSgt M_ to notify the ASDNCO about her change of location, to wit:  if she leaves her assigned Bks rm.
	Awarded restriction for 10 days and extra duty for 14 days.  Not appealed.

970707:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to minor disciplinary infractions as evidenced by a series of minor disciplinary infractions reflecting poor performance during the current enlistment.

970708:	Applicant advised of 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.

970708:	Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to minor disciplinary infractions.  The factual basis for this recommendation was specifically minor disciplinary infractions.  Commanding Officer’s comments (verbatim):  "Private (Applicant) joined the Marine Corps on 12 January 1997.  Since joining Marine Corps Service Support Schools on 3 May 1997, she has shown little desire and motivation to be in the Marine Corps.  In less than 2 months at this command, Private (Applicant) has had three non-judicial punishments all for illegally socializing with permanent personnel and disobedience of direct orders from superiors.  Private (Applicant) has repeatedly revealed her true colors as a truly undisciplined individual.” 

970716:	SJA review determined the case sufficient in law and fact.  [EXTRACTED FROM COMMANDER, MCB, CAMP LEJEUNE LTR OF 28 JUL 97.]

970728:	GCMCA [MCB, Camp Lejeune] directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to minor disciplinary infractions.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 970730 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to minor disciplinary infractions (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 Applicant failed to provide sufficient documentation to substantiate her allegation that her separation proceedings were delayed in an inequitable or improper manner.  The Board found that the Applicant’s tour on active duty and record of misconduct was sufficient to warrant involuntary separation under other than honorable conditions.  The Board found no impropriety or inequity in the Applicant’s low proficiency and conduct markings.  These markings are based on performance and conduct which include actions well beyond the reception of a weekly achievement award.  Relief denied.

The Applicant’s discharge characterization accurately reflects her service to her country.  The discharge was proper and equitable.  Normally, to permit relief, an error or inequity must have existed during the period of enlistment in question.  No such error or inequity is evident 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, and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities, are examples of verifiable documents that should be provided to receive consideration for relief, based on post-service conduct.  The Applicant did not provide sufficient documentation to warrant an upgrade to her discharge.  Relief denied.

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 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 90, disobeying a lawful order of a commissioned officer; Article 91, willfully disobeying a lawful order from a non-commissioned officer; Article 92, failure to obey a lawful general order.

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