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

 ex-Pvt, USMC
Docket No. MD05-00553

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20050202.  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 20050519.  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 stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

1.  “To whom it may concern,

     I feel that my discharge upon separation was deserved, at the time.  I was very young, and I know that I made many mistakes.  At the time, becoming a Marine was the proudest moment in my life.  I know that it didn’t always seem that way by some of my actions.  By many of my other actions, it was very evident though, as seen in my SRB.
     I can not explain away or excuse my actions back then.  All I can do now is try to convey how sorry I am for my actions, and prove to you that I am not the same person.  I have been married now for almost six years, and we have a four year old son.  I know that being a wife and mother alone, doesn’t prove that I am a changed person.
     I know that I didn’t put into action all that I learned about being a Marine, right away, and I am sorry for that.  Though, for almost six years now, I have put all the principles I learned, into my family.  Because of the Marine training that I had, I have become an excellent wife and mother, with a great family.  I have truly learned from my mistakes, and I want to be the best I can be, for my family.   Having my discharge changed to an Honorable one will help me move on, and become the woman that my family deserves.  Please don’t punish me, the rest of this life, for a few mistakes that I made in my youth.  I am asking for a single chance to feel the pride I once had when I first became a Marine.  Again I am truly sorry for my unbecoming actions as a young Marine, Thank-You so much for your time, and attention, to this matter.

Sincerely,
[signed] G_ J, K_ (Applicant)
AKA G_ J.  R_ (Applicant)”

Documentation

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

None were submitted.

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   None
	Inactive: USMCR(J)		960522 - 960527	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  960528		Date of Discharge:  971030

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    01  05  03
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  19			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  66

Highest Rank:  PFC			MOS:  3043

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Proficiency:  4.1 (7)			Conduct:  3.5 (7)

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  RMB, CoA, MM

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:

961008:	NJP for violation of UCMJ Article 92, failed to obey a lawful order between 2130 and 2300 on 960927, to wit: consuming alcohol while under the legal drinking age; Violation of UCMJ Article 134, drunk and disorderly between approximately 2200 and 2345 on 960927.  Awarded restriction for 30 days.  Not appealed.

961014:	Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct.  [Academic deficiencies with the prescribed course of instruction for the Marine Corps Weather Observer Course 68B.  Specifically, failure to pass measurements due to poor study habits and failure to display ample motivation to accomplish course objectives.]  Necessary corrective actions explained and disciplinary warning issued.

961120:	Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct.  [Dropped from the Marine Corps Weather Observer Class due to misconduct.]  Discharge warning issued.

961202:	NJP for violation of UCMJ Article 91, disrespectful in tone and demeanor, towards TSgt J_ on 961114 by telling him in a loud disrespectful way, that he was wrong about the area they had covered the day before and were now reviewing.  Awarded forfeiture of $350.00 per month for 2 months (total forfeiture $700), restriction for 30 days.  Not appealed.

961224:	Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct.  [Unsatisfactory conduct which led to the NJP proceeding of 961202 in that Applicant exercised poor judgment and exhibited poor military presence in that Applicant was disrespectful in tone and demeanor to TSGT J_.  Lack of control and inability to follow regulations is prejudicial to good order and military discipline.]  Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, and disciplinary warning issued.

970701:	Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct.  [Unacceptable and immature behavior as evidenced by your misbehavior in barracks 2820 on 970620.]  Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.

970711:	NJP for violation of UCMJ Article 86, Unauthorized absence from Co PT formation from 0520 to 0640 on 970711.  Awarded forfeiture of 7 days pay (total forfeiture of $235.00), restriction and extra duties for 14 days.  Not appealed.

970711:	Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct.  [Unauthorized absence.]  Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.

970825:	Summary Court-Martial.
	Charge I: violation of the UCMJ, Article 91 (2 specifications):
	Specification 1: Disrespectful in language toward Sergeant E_ L_ on 970731 by saying to him “F--k that, I’m not doing it” or words to that effect.
	Specification 2: Disrespectful in language toward Staff Sergeant J_ H. T_ Jr. on 970731 by saying to him that she “don’t give a f--k" or words to that effect.
	Charge II: violation of the UCMJ, Article 92
	Specification: Fail to obey a lawful order by wrongfully having a guest in her barracks after 2400 hours on 970731.
	Charge III: violation of the UCMJ, Article 134:
	Specification: Disorderly conduct on 970731.
	Finding: to Charge I and II and the specifications thereunder, guilty.  Charge III and the specification thereunder, not guilty.
	Sentence: Forfeiture of two-thirds pay per month for 1 month ($600 total forfeiture), confinement for 30 days, reduction to E-1.
	CA action 970902:  Sentence approved and ordered executed.

970929:	[Extracted from CG, III MEF letter of 971015.]  Commanding Officer, 7th Communication Bn, Camp Hansen, Okinawa, Japan recommends Applicant be separated with an other than honorable discharge by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.

971006:	SJA review determined the case sufficient in law and fact.  [SJA letter references the fact that the Applicant waived her right to an administrative discharge board.]

971015:	GCMCA, Commanding General, III Marine Expeditionary Force directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.

Parts of Applicant’s discharge package, including the processing authority notification and the processing authority request to the separation authority, are missing from her service records.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19971030 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:  The Applicant states that the disciplinary problems she encountered during her period of service were the result of her immaturity.  The NDRB recognizes that serving in the Marine Corps is challenging and that our country is fortunate to have men and women willing to endure the hardships and sacrifices required in order to serve their country.  The hardships and challenges of military life, however, do not excuse a Marine from accountability for his or her actions.  There is no evidence in the record to suggest that the Applicant was not responsible for her misconduct or that she should not be held accountable for her actions.  In the Applicant's case, the NDRB found that aggravating factors outweighed any mitigating and extenuating factors contained in the record.  Aggravating factors noted by the Board included:
o	five formal counseling (Page 11) entries for deficiencies in performance and conduct; 
o	three nonjudicial punishment (NJP) proceedings for violations of the following Articles of the UCMJ:  86 Unathorized absence, 91 Insubordinate conduct, 
92 Disobeying a lawful order, and 134 Drunk and disorderly conduct; and
o	a summary court-martial for violations of the following Articles of the UCMJ:
91 Insubordinate conduct (2 specifications) (G), 92 Disobeying a lawful order (G), and 134 Disorderly conduct (NG).
The NDRB found that the Applicant's service was equitably characterized.  Relief on this basis is denied.

Additionally, The NDRB, under its responsibility to examine the propriety of an Applicant's discharge, will change the reason for discharge if such a change is warranted.  The Board found that there was no evidence of impropriety or procedural irregularities in the Applicant's discharge.  The Applicant's misconduct was clearly and properly documented and she acknowledged and waived her right to review by an administrative discharge board.  The Applicant was afforded the appropriate due process during the processing of her case.  Relief on this basis is not warranted.

The Applicant also states that she is now a wife of six years and a mother of four years and has successfully applied the principles learned from the Marine Corps to her family life.  The Board commends the Applicant for this effort but must have her understand that there is no law or regulation that provides for an unfavorable discharge to be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving the Marine Corps.  The NDRB is, however, authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the Applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review.  Examples of documentation that should be provided to the Board include proof of educational pursuits, verifiable employment records, documentation of community service, and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities.  The Applicant has not provided any documentation for the Board to consider so, relief based on post-service conduct is not possible at this time.

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 her 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 P1900.16E), effective 31 Jan 97 until 31 Aug 01. 

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 92 Failure to obey order or regulation.

C.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part II, AUTHORITY/POLICY FOR DEPARTMENTAL DISCHARGE REVIEW.

D.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part V, Para 502, Propriety.

E.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part V, Para 503, Equity.

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 “http://Boards.law.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:

		Secretary of the Navy Council of Review Boards
		Attn:  Naval Discharge Review Board
		720 Kennon Street SE Rm 309
		Washington Navy Yard DC  20374-5023