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

  ex-Pvt, USMCR
Docket No. MD03-00744

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20030317.  The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable or general/under honorable conditions.  The Applicant requests a personal appearance hearing discharge review.  The Applicant did not list any representative on the DD Form 293.  In the acknowledgement letter, the Applicant was informed that the Board first conducts a documentary record review prior to any personal appearance hearing.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20040205.  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/UNSAT PARTICIPATION IN READY RESERVE, authority:  MARCORSEPMAN 6213.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

Issues 1-7 were not found.

“8.  I request that a correction of injustice of my discharge from the United States Marine Corps be changed from an RE-4 to a general or honorable discharge and that if possible my rank of E-3 be reinstated so that I may contain you to serve in the military for a respectable number of years to for come. I have tried to re-enlist so that I may one day be commissioned and or continue to serve in the enlisted ranks in the military but am not able to do so due to the RE Code under which I am listed. I have been an upstanding citizen in the community and during my time of service was a very active and supporting member of my unit and its causes.

9.  I believe the record to be an injustice to myself because I did not know that I was being discharged or that during the time in which my discharge proceeding were being taken place that I was being contacted to avert the situation. From the months of September 2000 to May 2001 I was a student at Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge. During this time I had indicated my new address to the Marine Corps Reserve Unit in St. Louis, MO. I will admit that during the months of August, September and October I did not attend drill due to that I was at the time going through a stage of alcoholism. I had conquered this stage and during this time I reported to the Marine Corps unit in Baton Rouge and also in St. Louis again to my whereabouts and what my situation was. Also during this time I had seen a psychologist at the University who was also a Lt. Commander in the navy. Lt. Commander D_ N_ H_, Ph D. not only helped me through my situation but also had sent out to the Reserve Unit in St. Louis a letter stating that I was fit for duty. During the end of the fall session at LSU, I had decided that I would pursue to become an officer through means of the ROTC program at LSU and also through the National Guard unit located in Baton Rouge. During the beginning periods of Spring session I had not only attended some courses through the Army ROTC at LSU but I also tried to transfer enlistments over to the National Guard for their officer program. During this time I had not only contacted the Marine Corps headquarters for my files but I also had sent to the Marine Reserve Unit a letter to receive my personal files and start my transfer over. However during this time I had discovered to my dismay that discharge proceedings were being taken into effect. I was shocked to hear of this news. I did contact the Naval Corrections board in June 2001 to receive a corrections letter. Furthermore I did not receive any discharge papers or any records of my SRB from the Marine Corps. I contacted headquarters in Quantico, VA. After receiving my SRB, I was completely outraged. Not only did I come to find what I was discharged for but also the allegations based against me by SSgt. F_ and SSgt T_ are totally unbased. I have contacted the Judge Advocates General’s office in New Orleans to further pursue this matter of hopefully filing a case against these two individuals. SSgt. F_ in his reports is very inaccurate about many of the situations and also about any attempts to contact myself.  However SSgt. F_ does not state all the attempts made by myself and other individuals of the armed forces on my behalf.  I am deeply saddened that it has come to my not only requesting a correction but also submitting evidence against a fellow marine who has been detrimental in so far as destroying my military career. I had no idea of any rights which I possessed until I recently reviewed my SRB. I am very aware of my legal rights to certain matters in SSgt. F_'s recklessness or unwillingness to let me purse my tights, this injustice has occurred. --I have in the past and still continue to help bring recruits into the armed services as well as being a very contributory member of many organizations and charities for the benefit of the armed services as well as veterans. During the last one year I have been in St. Louis, pursuing my professional career after college. I believe truly that I should have submitted this request a long time ago and ask for forgiveness in my tardiness and lapse of judgment. It is my dream and goal to still continue serving and hopefully reach the ability to be commissioned and have a illustrious career in the military. I will be very grateful for the possibility of a correction to be made so that I may re-enlist and re-instated as an E-3 if possible or have the ability to apply to officer training in any respect possible. If an honorable discharge is not in the capacity of the committee I would appreciate even a general discharge or discharge from which I may still fulfill my dreams of serving our nation.”

Documentation

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

Letter from Applicant dated March 5, 2003 (3 pp.) (2 copies)
Thirty-four pages from Applicant’s service record
Letter of recommendation from GySgt L_ W_

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:    None
	Inactive:  None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  981203		Date of Discharge:  010523

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    00  05  02
	Inactive:  02  00  19

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  8 

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  89

Highest Rank:  LCpl

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Proficiency:  3.1 (4)			Conduct:  3.0 (4)

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  None

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/UNSAT PARTICIPATION IN READY RESERVE; authority:  MARCORSEPMAN 6213.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

990111:	Enlistment contract into the USMCR documents acknowledgement of the requirement to participate in 48 scheduled drills and not less than 14 days of annual training per year for 6 years upon completion of initial active duty training.

000817:	Commanding Officer notified the Applicant of unsatisfactory drill participation via certified letter.  No response.

000911:	Administratively reduced to PFC due to unsatisfactory participation.

000919:	Commanding Officer attempted to notify the Applicant of unsatisfactory drill participation via certified letter.  Letter was undeliverable.

001011:	Administratively reduced to Pvt due to unsatisfactory participation.

001121:	Letter of intent to administratively separate under other than honorable conditions for the failure to participate in reserve training was sent via certified mail, return receipt requested.  Applicant failed to acknowledge receipt of the notification package.  Package was returned to sender.  The failure to acknowledge official certified mail constitutes acknowledgement and waiver of all rights (MARCORSEPMAN par. 6303).

001121:	Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to unsatisfactory participation in the Ready Reserve.  The factual basis for this recommendation was his absence from 14 consecutive drill periods.

010423:	SJA review determined the case sufficient in law and fact.  

010423:	GCMCA [CG, MARFORRES] directed the Applicant's discharge under conditions other than honorable by reason of misconduct due to unsatisfactory participation in the Ready Reserve.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20010523 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to unsatisfactory participation in the Ready Reserve (A, B, and C).  The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (D).  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 (E and F).

The Applicant’s issues 1-7 were not presented to the Board for inclusion in the record or for consideration.

Issue 8.  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.  

Issue 9.  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 his failure to participate in his reserve drills.  There is no indication in the record that the Applicant was placed in a not qualified to drill status during his unexcused absences.  While he may feel that alcoholism was a factor that contributed to his actions, the record clearly reflects his disregard for the requirements of military discipline and demonstrated that he was unfit for further service.  The evidence of record, to include the letter from LCdr H_, dated 20001030 does not demonstrate that the Applicant was not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions.  Relief denied.

The Applicant’s allegations that he was denied rights regarding his administrative separation are without merit.  The service record notes that the Applicant’s administrative separation package was mailed and returned without delivery.  It is the Applicant’s responsibility to keep his chain of command notified of an accurate address for mail and current phone number.  The failure to acknowledge receipt of official certified mail constitutes acknowledgement and waiver of all rights (MARCORSEPMAN par. 6303).  The MARFORRES Staff Judge Advocate found the Applicant’s administrative separation to be sufficient in law and fact.  The Applicant’s allegations against members of his Inspector-Instructor Staff does not refute the presumption of regularity in this case.  Relief 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 6213 of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16E), effective 18 Aug 95. 

B.  Marine Corps Reserve Administrative Management Manual, MCO P1001R.1, Chapter 3, Reserve Participation and Administrative Procedures, paragraph 300.

C.  Table 6‑1 of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16E), effective 18 Aug 95, Guide for Characterization of Service.

D.  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.  

E.  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.

F.  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