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

  ex-PFC, USMC
Docket No. MD03-00461

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20030122.  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 20031205.  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 HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL)/MISCONDUCT, authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6210.3.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

“1. I am requesting that my discharge from the United States Marine Corps be upgraded from a General (under honorable conditions) to a Honorable.  And that my reentry code of RE-3B be upgraded to a 1–A.  I joined the Marine Corps on June 15, 1998 and reenlisted on Oct 2, 2001.  I was discharged on June 26, 2002 because of minor disciplinary infractions.  Two months prior to this I was scheduled to report to a new duty station which I never got to.  During my service I was never court-martialed or never had any lost time.  Also on my dd-214 are some errors as follows:  Block 5 should read 19800121 instead of 19820121, Box 11 should read 4years and 10 days and Block 12c should read 4years and 10 days.  I have also enclosed supporting documents along with this letter and application.”

Documentation

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

Copy of DD Form 214
Certificate of Reenlistment
Honorable Discharge certificate

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   USMC		980616 - 011001	HON
	Inactive: USMCR(J)		970626 - 980615	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  011002		Date of Discharge:  020626

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    00  08  25
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  5 

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  39

Highest Rank:  LCpl

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Proficiency:  3.8 (3)			Conduct:  3.7 (3)

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NDSM, MM, SSDR (w/1*)

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

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

UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL)/MISCONDUCT, authority:  MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6210.3.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

001221:	Completed inpatient alcohol rehabilitation treatment at TRISARF, Tripler AMC.

011002:	Reenlisted for 5 years.

020404:	Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct.  [Misconduct and alcohol abuse.  On 020322, detained by civil authorities for harassment towards two civilians.]  Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.

020430:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 121:  On or about 020421, wrongfully appropriate Cpl Z_’s ATM card and withdrew $180.00.
Awarded forfeiture of $619.00 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duties for 45 days, reduction to E-2.  Not appealed.

020513:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct as evidenced by numerous violations of the UCMJ.

020514:	Applicant advised of his rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge Board.

020514:	Director, SACC, MCB Hawaii evaluated Applicant as alcohol dependent and recommended aftercare meetings twice each week. 

020521:	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 one nonjudicial punishment and one page 11 counseling for an alcohol related incident.  The fact that he was allowed to reenlist with the disciplinary track record he has established in his first enlistment is unusual.  Applicant clearly has an alcohol problem.  

020617:	An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence, found that the Applicant had committed misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct, that the misconduct warranted separation, and recommended discharge under honorable conditions (general).

020620:	SJA review determined the case sufficient in law and fact.

020624:	GCMCA [CG, MCB Hawaii] directed the Applicant's discharge under honorable conditions (general) 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 20020626 under honorable conditions (general) 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.  When a Marine’s service has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service as honorable.  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 award of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on one occasion, an adverse counseling entry on another occasion, and lack of progress in rehabilitating from alcohol dependence.  The Applicant’s conduct evaluation average, 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 characterization of service.  An upgrade to honorable is 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.

Concerning a change in reenlistment code, 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.  

The Applicant’s discharge characterization accurately reflects his service to his country for the period of enlistment under review.  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 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