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

 ex-PFC, USMC 
Docket No. MD03-00022

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20020926.  The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable.  The Applicant requests 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 20040114.  After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the Applicant’s service was discovered by the NDRB.  The Board’s vote was unanimous that the character of the discharge shall not change.  The discharge shall remain: GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT, authority:  MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6210.6.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

1.  “I WAS HAVING PROBLEMS WITH MY WIFE ( EX-WIFE NOW ) AND TRIED TO FIND HER FOR TWO YEARS WHEN SHE LEFT WITH MY SON AND I COULDN’T FIND HER SO AFTER TWO YEARS I FILED FOR A DIVORCE AN STARTED SEEING ANOTHER LADY.THIS IS WHEN MY WIFE CAME BACK FROM PANAMA CITY FL.AND STARTED CAUSING PROBLEMS.MY DIVORCE WAS FINAL IN OCT.1999 AND I HAVE SINCE MARRIED THE LADY I WAS SEEING AND ARE EXPECTING OUR FIRST CHILD IN NOVEMBER THIS YEAR.I FEEL THAT THIS PROBLEM WITH MY EX-WIFE COST ME MY CAREER IN THE USMC.I WAS RECOMMENDED BY THE OCS (MECP) ONLY TWO MONTHS PRIOR TO THIS PROBLEM.I HAD FULL INTENTIONS OF MAKING THE USMC MY LIFE.I AM ASKING YOU TO UPGRADE MY DISCHARGE TO HONORABLE.I FEEL IF YOU WILL LOOK AT MY FOUR YEARS AND ALL THE SCHOOLS AND TRAINING I HAD, I FEEL YOU WILL AGREE THIS REQUEST SHOULD BE GRANTED.”

Applicant marked the box "I HAVE LISTED ADDITIONAL ISSUES AS AN ATTACHMENT TO THIS APPLICATION."  None were found.

Documentation

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

Applicant’s DD Form 214 (Member 1 and 4) (2)
Job/character reference, dated June 30, 2002
Job/character reference, undated
Bachelor of Science diploma, dated June 17, 1999

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   None
	Inactive: USMCR(J)		911107 - 920930	ELS
		   USMCR(J)		950125 – 950507	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  950508		Date of Discharge:  990401

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    03  10  24
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  20			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  13			AFQT:  88

Highest Rank:  Cpl

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Proficiency:  4.6 (6)			Conduct:  4.6 (6)

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  GCM, NDSM, MM, Certificate of Appreciation, Letter of Appreciation

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT, authority:  MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6210.6.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

990401:	DD Form 214: Applicant discharged general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

The Applicant’s discharge package is missing from service record and some Microfiche files are unreadable.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19990401 under honorable conditions (general) for misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense (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 did not provide sufficient documentation to refute the presumption of regularity in this case.  Relief is therefore denied.

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.  Relief not warranted.

The Applicant 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.  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 January 1997 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.

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