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

 Ex-Pvt, USMCR 
Docket No. MD03-00855

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20030409.  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 20040303.  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:

“1. My command abused its authority when it decided to discharge me and give a less than honorable discharge.

2.  My discharge was based on minor offenses.

3.  My discharge was too harsh.  It was much worse than most Marines received who had missed for more drills than me.

4.  The NCOs in my chain-of-command failed to report important, true, information to my commanding officer which resulted in my discharge.

5.  Clemency is warranted because it is an injustice for me to continue to suffer the adverse consequences of a bad discharge.  I have tried several times to reenlist for active duty but have been denied.  Also turned down for Fire Department.

6.  My average conduct + efficiency rating + proficiency marks were excellent.  An average of 4.8.

7.  My record of service billets held / Squad Leader- Recruit Training / Squad Leader. MCT / Platoon leader (guide) MOS School / showed I was a good service member.

8.  I had a honorable discharge from active duty.

9.  I have been a upstanding citizen since discharge.

10.  No NJPs, Article 15s, court-martials, c, page 11s.

11.  My ability to make scheduled drills was impaired by financial problems which caused me to work full-time and be out of town on scheduled drills which I notified my squad leader, but he failed to notify unit on two occasions.” 

Documentation

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

Copy of DD Form 214
Letter from Applicant
Two pages from Applicant’s service record
Letter of recommendation from C_ S_
Letter of recommendation from J_ S_
Letter of recommendation from N_ B_
Grade report from Summer semester, 2003

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:  971028		Date of Discharge:  000620

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    00  05  13
	Inactive:  02  02  10

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  8

Education Level:  13			AFQT:  89

Highest Rank:  LCpl

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Proficiency:  3.8 (7)			Conduct:  3.7 (7)

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:

971219:	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.

990122:	Administratively reduced to PFC due to unsatisfactory participation in unit drills.

000110:	Commanding Officer notified the Applicant of unsatisfactory drill participation via certified letter.  No response from Applicant.

000225:	Administratively reduced to Private due to unsatisfactory participation in unit drills.

000229:	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 receipted for letter by return signature but failed to acknowledge the contents.  The failure to acknowledge the contents constitutes waiver of all rights. 

000401:	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 30 unauthorized absences from scheduled drills.  

000602:	SJA review determined the case sufficient in law and fact. 

000602:	GCMCA [Commander, MFR] 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 20000620 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).

Issues 1-3, 6-8, and 10-11.  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 unit drills.  The Applicant’s conduct average markings were below the standard required for honorable service and 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.  While he may feel that his financial and civilian work situations were factors 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 positive aspects of the Applicant’s record do not mitigate his misconduct.  The evidence of record 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.

Issue 4.  There is nothing in the record to support the Applicant’s claim that NCOs in his chain of command failed to do their duty resulting in the Applicant being improperly reported as unexcused for unit drills.  Relief denied.

Issues 5 and 9.  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