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

  ex-PFC, USMC
Docket No. MD03-01055

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20030527.  The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable.  The Applicant requests a documentary record 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 20020415.  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-Pattern of misconduct (administrative discharge board required but waived), authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6210.3.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

1.  “Dear Sir and/or Ma’am,

I’m writing this letter in regards to the administrative discharge that I received in early April, 1994, in hopes that it will be upgraded after this review.

I’ve put this letter off for some time out of fear for what the outcome might he, and so now I will approach this with diligence and honesty.  I make no excuses for the Article 15 Unauthorized Absences.  I was late.  I’ve heard a saying that youth is wasted on the young; but until you get a little older you really can’t understand just how true that is.  I believe if I had waited a few years to enlist the end result would have been wholly different.  Making mistakes puts you on the fast track to understanding that responsibility is the backbone to one’s ethical standards. The Marines has given me values that are an everyday part of my life, and I am proud of my service in the Corps, as with everything that I do.   Honestly, the betterment of my future is the driving force behind wanting this review and upgrade.  I’ve recently enrolled in school and I’ve enclosed a copy of my letter of acceptance.  The school is far away from my home and as you can imagine, quite costly.  I paid completely into the Montgomery G.I. Bill but unfortunately I cannot use it because of the General Under Honorable Conditions discharge that I received. When reviewing my Service Record Book, you will find over the time of my enlistment that I always scored a First Class on my P.F.T.s, that I am a third award rifle expert, and have many various campaign medals for service abroad during wartime and peacetime.  My ending proficiency and conduct marks were over 4.0, 4.0.  I served my country for three and a half years, just six months shy of my E.A.S.  Thank all of you for taking tile time to listen.  I’ll be anxiously awaiting your response.

Sincerely,

B_ C_ H_”

Documentation

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

Letter from Divers Institute of Technology, dated February 24, 2003

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   None
	Inactive: USMCR(J)		900124 - 900911	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  900912		Date of Discharge:  940408

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    03  06  27
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  51

Highest Rank:  LCpl

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Proficiency:  4.2 (9)			Conduct:  4.0 (9)

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  JMUA, NDSM, SSDR with Star, SASM with Star

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

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

UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL)/Misconduct-Pattern of misconduct (administrative discharge board required but waived), authority:  MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6210.3.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

910830:	Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct.  [Financial irresponsibility by uttering two worthless checks totaling $350.00.]  Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.

920318:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86:
Specification: Absence without leave on 0400, 920317, to wit: failed to be at rifle range formation.
Awarded forfeiture of $300.00 per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duties for 30 days.  Not appealed.

920319:	Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct.  [Unauthorized absence from rifle range formation.]  Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.

920513:	Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct.  [Unauthorized absence.]  Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.

930608:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86:
Specification: Unauthorized absence from 1400-1630, 930507.
Violation of UCMJ, Article 107:
Specification: Made a false official statement to Sgt on 930507, to wit: “I arrived at dental at 1415 and within 10 minutes I was seen by Cdr, I was done with my first appointment.
Awarded forfeiture of $231.00 per month for 2 months, correctional custody for 30 days.  Not appealed.

930927:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86:
Specification: Unauthorized absence from 0500-0615, 930823
Awarded forfeiture of $456.00 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duties for 45 days.  Forfeiture for 1 month suspended for 6 months.  Not appealed.

930929:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.

931004:	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 your three NJPs, as well as your page 11 counselings for your derogatory behavior.

931005:	Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct.  [Your three NJP’s and recommendation for administrative discharge due to misconduct which was identified as a deficiency in your conduct.]  Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.
931019:	Applicant advised of rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge Board.

931229:	Applicant’s statement.

940224:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (2 specs):
Specification 1: Fail to go at the time prescribed on 1730, 940203, to wit: field formation.
Specification 2: Fail to go at the time prescribed on 1730, 940210, to wit: field formation.
Violation of UCMJ, Article 91:
Specification: Disrespectful in language toward Cpl on 940211, by saying to him “No he wasn’t going to move” and his tone then became belligerent and abusive.
Awarded forfeiture of $217.00 per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duties for 14 days.  Forfeiture suspended for 6 months.  Not appealed.

940304:	An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence and by unanimous vote, 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).

940325:	SJA review determined the case sufficient in law and fact.

940329:	GCMCA [Commanding General, 2d Force Service Support Group] 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 19940408 under honorable conditions (general)) for misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct (A).  The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (B).  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 (C and D).

Issue 1.   The Applicant's general under honorable conditions discharge was proper and equitable.  The NDRB, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an Applicant's discharge, will change the reason for discharge if such a change is warranted.  There is no evidence of impropriety, inequity or procedural irregularities in the Applicant's discharge.  The Applicant's misconduct is clearly documented.  The Applicant was afforded the appropriate due process during the handling of his case.  An upgrade of the Applicant's discharge to an honorable characterization is not warranted.  Relief denied.

The Veterans Administration determines eligibility for post-service benefits not the Navy Discharge Review Board.  There is no requirement or law that grants recharacterization solely on the issue of obtaining Veterans' benefits and this issue does not serve to provide a foundation upon which the Board can grant relief.  

Additionally, the Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment or educational opportunities as requested in the issue.  Regulations limit the Board’s review to a determination on the propriety and equity of the discharge.  Relief denied.

The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of discharge.  The Applicant can provide documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments or any other evidence related to his discharge at that time.  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 P1900.16D), effective 27 Jun 89 until 17 Aug 95.

B.  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.  

C.  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.

D.  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