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

  ex-PVT, USMC
Docket No. MD03-00054

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 20021002, 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 20030912.  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: UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6210.3.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as submitted

1.  I like it to be changed to an Honorable.  So I can get back in the service to serve my country.  I miss the comrade of it all, and I think it would to me some good to serve again.  I just needed a month and I would of got my Honorable. 

Documentation

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

Copy of DD Form 214

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   USMC		None
	Inactive: USMCR(J)		961031 - 970825	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  970826		Date of Discharge:  010726

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    03  11  01
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  17			Years Contracted:  4 

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  44

Highest Rank:  LCpl

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Proficiency:  4.4 (2)			Conduct:  4.4 (2)

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  SSDR (2), COA (2), LOA 

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. 6210.3.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

000111:	Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct.  [Without notification absent from appointed place of duty from 0700, 991217 to 1000, 991217.]  Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.

000301:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Did on or about 0700, 000107, without authority, absent himself from his place of duty at which he was required to be, to wit: section formation at Sakura theater, located at MCAS, Iwakuni, Japan, and did remain so absent until on or about 0715, 000107.
Awarded forfeiture of $300.00 pay per month for 1 month (suspended for 3 months), restriction and extra duties for 30 days.  Not appealed.

000809:	Diagnosed with alcohol dependence.  

000816:	Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct.  [Violation of Article 86, of the UCMJ, absent from work section and PCS Check-out time, on or about 0730, 000731 to 0900, 000731.  Violation of Article 86, of the UCMJ, absent from work section and PCS Check-out time, on or about 0730, 000801 to 0830, 000801.  Violation of Article 115, of the UCMJ, on or about 0800, 000802 inflicting self-injury to both wrists to avoid permanent change of station orders given by HQMC which resulted in missing movement.]  Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.

000816:	Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct.  [Concerning providing 1/3 of  basic pay and 100% of my BAH to dependents (i.e., wife/son), also advised that failure to do so is in violation of MCO P5800.16A par. 15002.2b, and punishable under Article 92 of the UCMJ.]  Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.

010330:	Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct.  [Without approval, out of bounds on or about 010322.]  Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.

010509:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Did, on or about 010430, 0730, until on or about 010430, 0827, failed to go at the time prescribed to 0730 formation, located at the Fac Maint Bldg.
Awarded restriction and extra duties for 30 days, reduction to E-2 (suspended for 6 months).  Not appealed.

010516:	Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct.  [Being UA from 0730, 010430, until on or about 0827, 010430.]  Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.

010523:	NJP imposed and suspended on 010509 for a period of 6 months is hereby vacated and the punishment is ordered executed.

010618:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 134: Did, on or about 010527, break restriction.
Awarded forfeiture of $500.00 pay per month for 2 months (suspended for 6 months), reduction to E-1.  Not appealed.

010627:	NJP imposed and suspended on 010618 for a period of 6 months is hereby vacated and the punishment is ordered executed.

010629:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.

010702:	Facilities Maintenance Officer, Marine Corps Mountain Warfare Training Center, Bridgeport, California recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.

010703:	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.

010703:	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 failure to abide by the rules and regulations of the UCMJ.  Since 20 January 2000, Applicant has been involved in three nonjudicial punishments and five 6105 counseling entries. 

010724:	SJA review determined the case sufficient in law and fact.

010725:	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 20010726 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.  A characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions is warranted when the member's conduct constitutes a significant departure from that expected of a Marine.  The Applicant’s service was marred by three nonjudicial punishments and five page 11 counseling entries during his three years and eleven months of active duty.  The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflects his disobedience of the orders and directives which regulate good order and discipline in the naval service, and falls short of that required for an honorable or under honorable characterization of service.  An upgrade would be inappropriate.  Relief denied.

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 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 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 115, inflicting self-injury.

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