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

ex-PVT, USMC
Docket No. MD05-00609

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20050216.  The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions.  The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review.  The Applicant did not designate a representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20050608.  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 – Commission of a serious offense (all other) admin discharge board required but waived, authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6210.6.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

1. “Would like to re-enlist active, reserves or national guards”.

REMARKS: I’ve been employed in a community Hospital for Six years.  I’ve worked in construction and odd jobs since my discharge.  I am very interested in returning to my active duty or enlist in the reserves.  I am in excellent physical conditions.  I have not had any surgeries or have not been hospitalized in 10 years.  Please consider upgrading my character of service so I can continue to serve my country.

Documentation

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

Applicant’ s DD Form 214

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   None
	Inactive: USMCR(J)		921113 - 921228	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  921229		Date of Discharge:  931027

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    00  05  16  (Does not include lost time.)
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  4 

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  41

Highest Rank:  PVT			MOS:  9900

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Proficiency:  4.1 (1)			Conduct:  4.1 (1)

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  REB, NDSM

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  133

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Misconduct-Commission of a serious offense (all other) admin discharge board required but waived, authority:  MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6210.6.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

930407:	UA (AWOL) from 0001, 930407.

930508:	Declared a deserter.

930818:	From UA (AWOL) at 1100, 930817 when apprehended by Los Angeles Police Department, Los Angeles, CA.  Returned to Military Control 1100, 930818.

930820:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: UA (AWOL) from 0001, 930407 to 1100, 930818 (133days/A).
	Award:  Forfeiture of $400.00 pay per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days.  No indication of appeal in the record.

930903:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense. The least favorable characterization of service is under other than honorable conditions.  The Commanding Officer is recommending a characterization of under other than honorable conditions. 

930903:	Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights except the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation.

930903:	Commanding Officer, Headquarters and Services Battalion, recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.  Factual basis for recommendation:  Applicant was UA  930407 – 930817. 

931022:	SJA review determined the case sufficient in law and fact.

931022:	GCMCA, Base Commander, Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton, directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19931027 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense (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.  Since the NDRB has no jurisdiction over reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Navy, Marine Corps, or any other of the Armed Forces, NDRB is not authorized to change a reenlistment code.  An unfavorable “RE” code is, in itself, not a bar to reenlistment.  A request for a waiver can be submitted during the processing of a formal application for reenlistment through a recruiter.  Only the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) can make changes to reenlistment codes.

When the service of a member of the U.S. Marine Corps has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service as honorable.  An under other than honorable conditions discharge 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 a nonjudicial punishment proceeding for violation of Article 86 (UA for 133 days) of the UCMJ.  According to the UCMJ, unauthorized absence for more than 30 days is considered a serious offense.  The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflects his willful failure to meet the requirements of his contract with the U.S. Marine Corps and falls far short of that required for an upgrade of his characterization of service.  Relief is not warranted.

The following is provided for the edification of the Applicant.  Normally, to permit relief, a procedural impropriety or inequity must have occurred during the discharge process for the period of enlistment in question.  The Board discovered no impropriety after a review of Applicant’s case.  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 Naval service.  The NDRB is 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.  As of this time, the Applicant has not provided any documentation for the Board to consider.  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 The Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16D), effective 27 Jun 89 until 17 Aug 95. 

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 86, unauthorized absence for more than 30 days.

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