ex-, USMC
MD07-00572

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received:  20070320 	Characterization Received:  
Narrative Reason:  As a result of Court-Martial (SPCM)-Other 		Authority:  MARCORSEPMAN Para. 1105
 
Applicant’s Request:	Characterization change to:  
			Narrative Reason change to: 
Applicant’s Issues:	1. Applicant not afforded a Psychological Evaluation
			2. PTSD was the cause of his Misconduct
			3. Clemency
			4. Post Service

Decision

By a vote of  the Characterization shall  .	
By a vote of  the Narrative Reason shall  As a result of Court-Martial (SPCM)-Other

Date:  20071204		Location:  Washington D.C.	 Representation:  

Discussion

Issue 1: ().  The Applicant contends that he was never given the opportunity to be evaluated by a Psychiatrist.  The government enjoys a presumption of regularity in the conduct of its affairs.  The Applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support his issue.  There is no evidence in the record, nor has the Applicant produced any evidence, to support the contention that he was not afforded the opportunity to consult with a psychiatrist.   When the Applicant filled in his Report of Medical History form on 19920623 for his separation physical, the Applicant checked “No” to “Other medical reasons” and checked “No” to “Have you ever had any illness or injury other than those already indicated?”

Issue 2: ().  The Applicant contends that his problems were attributed to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.  The government enjoys a presumption of regularity in the conduct of its affairs.  The Applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support his issue. The NDRB found no medical diagnosis in the record to support the Applicant's claim nor did the Applicant produce any medical diagnosis by competent medical authority to support his claim.  While he may feel that this was the underlying cause of his misconduct, the record reflects that during the Applicant’s courts-martial, the Applicant told the Military Judge that he went UA because he was having financial problems stemming from his fiancé’s pregnancy.  The evidence of record did not show that the Applicant was either not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions.  

Issue 3: ().    In response to the Applicant’s clemency request, relevant and material facts stated in a court-martial specification are presumed by the NDRB to be established facts.  With respect to a discharge adjudged by a court-martial case, the action of the NDRB is restricted to upgrades based on clemency.  Clemency is an act of leniency that reduces the severity of the punishment imposed.  The Applicant’s case was considered under the pertinent standards of equity to determine if any factors in this particular case merited clemency.  The reason for discharge, convicted by special court-martial, is most appropriate.  After a thorough review of the Applicant’s record, issues submitted, post service, and the standards of discipline, the Board determined that clemency was not warranted.    

Issue 4: (Equity).   The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge.  However, 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 the civilian life subsequent to leaving the service.  Normally, to permit relief, a procedural impropriety or inequity must have been found to have existed during the period of enlistment in question.  Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent that such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the Applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review, is considered.  The Applicant provided his statement relating to his educational pursuits and employment, and letters speaking to his character.  The Applicant's efforts need to be more encompassing.  For example, the Applicant could have produced evidence of a verifiable and continuous employment record, documentation of community service, further educational pursuits, and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities.  The Board determined that the documentation provided by the Applicant did not mitigate the misconduct that resulted in the characterization of discharge.   

In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of Government affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the Applicant.  After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Medical and Service Record Entries, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found that  

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

The NDRB did note administrative error(s) on the original DD Form 214:

	  “ITEM #29 TIME LOST 911201-911202, 920114-920522”
	
The NDRB will recommend to the Commandant of the Marine Corps that the DD 214 be corrected as appropriate. 

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive: USMCR (DEP)	19891222 - 19990122  		
Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment:    19900123   Years Contracted:  ; Extension:  	Date of Discharge:  19940106
Length of Service:    3  Yrs  8    Mths  3  Dys	Lost Time:  Days UA:  99  Days Confined:  
Education Level:  	Age at Enlistment:  	AFQT:  31	MOS:  0351  Highest Rank:  
Proficiency/Conduct marks (# of occasions):	4.2(  )/3.8(  )	Fitness reports:   
Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):  RIFLE MARKSMANSHIP BADGE, SEA SERVICE DEPLOYMENT RIBBON, NATIONAL DEFENSE SERVICE MEDAL, SOUTHWEST ASIA SERVICE MEDAL, COMBAT ACTION RIBBON, NAVY UNIT COMMENDATION. 

Medical/Service Record Entries Related to Characterization of Service or Basis for Discharge

19911204:	NJP -- Viol UCMJ Art. 86 – Unauthorized Absence.
	Awarded - FOP (NFR) for ( 7 days); Restr for (14 days); Extra duties (14 days).

19911204:	Counseling for poor judgment and failure to be at appointed place of duty.

19911220:	Counseling for lack of financial responsibility, poor judgment, and immaturity of personal affairs.

Discharge Process

Special Court Martial 19920730
	Charge I:  violation of the UCMJ, Article 86, (1 specification).
	Specification 1:  Unauthorized absence 19911201 - 19911202, [1 days/A.]
	Charge II:  violation of the UCMJ, Article 86, (1 specification).	
Specification 1:  Unauthorized absence 1992114 - 19920518, [98 days/A.]
Findings:  to Charge I and specifications 1 Guilty, to Charge II specification 1 Guilty
	Sentence:  Confinement for 40 days, forfeiture of $300 per month for 2 months, reduction to E-1, Bad Conduct discharge.
	CA 19930324:  In accordance with the terms of the pre-trial agreement, the sentence approved and ordered executed, except for bad conduct discharge.
	Discharged: 19940106

Types of Documents Submitted by Applicant and Considered By Board

Related to Military Service:	Service and/or Medical Record:  		Other Records:  

Related to Post-Service Period:  	
	Employment:  			Finances:  			Education: 		
	Health/Medical Records:  		Substance Abuse:			Criminal Records:  	
	Family/Personal Status: 		Community Service:  		References:  		
	
Additional Statements From Applicant:  	From Representative:    
Other Documentation (Describe) 

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A.  The Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16F), effective 01 Sep 2001 until Present, Paragraph 1105, DISCHARGE ADJUDGED BY SENTENCE OF COURT-MARTIAL. 

B.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part IV, Para 403m(7)(a),  Presumption Concerning Court-Martial Specifications.

C.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part II, Para 211, Regularity of Government Affairs,  Part V, Para 502, Propriety  and  Para 503, Equity.

D.  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 more than 30 days.

ADDENDUM:  Information for the Applicant

Complaint Procedures:  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 Instruction 1332.28, you may submit a complaint in accordance with Enclosure (5) of that Instruction to the Joint Service Review Activity, OUSD (P&R) PI-LP, The Pentagon, Washington, DC  20301-4000.  You should read Enclosure (5) of the Instruction 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 Instruction 1332.28 and other Decisional Documents by going online at “http://Boards.law.af.mil.”

Additional Reviews:  Subsequent to a document review, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the 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 additional evidence related to this discharge.  Representation at a personal appearance hearing is recommended but not required.  If a former member has been discharged for more than 15 years, has already been granted a personal appearance hearing or has otherwise exhausted his opportunities before the NDRB, the Applicant may petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR), 2 Navy Annex, Washington, DC 20370-5100 for further review.

Service Benefits:  The Veterans Administration determines eligibility for post-service benefits, not the Naval 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.

Employment/Educational Opportunities:  The Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment or educational opportunities.  Regulations limit the Board’s review to a determination of the propriety and equity of the discharge.  

Reenlistment/RE-code:  Since the NDRB has no jurisdiction over reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Navy, Marine Corps, or any other of the Armed Forces, the NDRB is not authorized to change a reenlistment code.  Only the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) can make changes to reenlistment codes.  Additionally, the Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities.  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.

Medical Conditions and Misconduct:  DoD disability regulations do not preclude a disciplinary separation.  Appropriate regulations stipulate that separations for misconduct take precedence over potential separations for other reasons.  Whenever a member is being processed through the Physical Evaluation Board, and subsequently is processed for an administrative involuntary separation for misconduct, the disability evaluation is suspended.  The Physical Evaluation Board case remains in suspense pending the outcome of the non-disability proceedings.  If the action includes either a punitive or administrative discharge for misconduct, the medical board report is filed in the member’s terminated health record.  Additionally, the NDRB does not have the authority to change a narrative reason for separation to one indicating a medical disability or “PTSD.”  Only the Board for Correction of Naval Records can grant this type of narrative reason change.  

Automatic Upgrades - 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 may be provided to the Board include proof of educational pursuits, verifiable employment records, documentation of community service, credible evidence of a substance free lifestyle and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities.  

Issues Concerning Bad-Conduct Discharges (BCD) – Because relevant and material facts stated in a court-martial specification are presumed by the NDRB to be established facts, issues relating to the Applicant’s innocence of charges for which he was found guilty cannot form a basis for relief.  With respect to a discharge adjudged by a court-martial, the action of the NDRB is restricted to upgrades based on clemency.  Clemency is an act of leniency that reduces the severity of the punishment imposed.  

Board Membership:  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