ex-, USMC

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received:  20080305
Characterization of Service Received:  
Narrative Reason for Discharge:  
Authority for Discharge:  MARCORSEPMAN  (unsat participation in ready reserve)

Applicant’s Request:	Characterization change to:  
			Narrative Reason change to: 

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive: USMCR (DEP)	19990901 - 20000226  		Active:   	
Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment: 20000227		   Period of enlistment:   Years   Months		Date of Discharge:  20040427
Length of Service:    Yrs    Mths  27  Dys	Education Level:  	Age at Enlistment:  	AFQT:  84
MOS:  0341  Highest Rank:   			Fitness reports:  
Proficiency/Conduct marks (# of occasions):	 ()/ ()
Awards and Decorations (per DD 214): Rifle  Pistol   

Periods of UA/CONF:  

NJPs:	  

SCMs:		

SPCMs:	

CC:	

6105 Counseling: Not available for any due to non-participation.

Types of Documents Submitted

Related to Military Service:	DD 214:  	Service and/or Medical Record:  		Other Records:  

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

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

Applicant’s Issues

1. Reenlistment opportunities.  
2. Applicant states he had a clean record before his discharge and no problems since his discharge; feels he has matured.    
    References he submitted paperwork for medical discharge with no response.  

Decision

Date:  20080410		Location:  Washington D.C	 Representation:  

By a vote of  the Characterization shall  .
By a vote of  the Narrative Reason shall  UNSATISFACTORY PARTICIATION IN READY RESERVE.

Discussion

Issue 1.   either  which the Board cannot form the basis of relief for the Applicant, or  the Board does not have the authority to grant the relief for which the Applicant petitioned.  The Applicant is directed to the Addendum regarding , specifically the paragraph addressing Reenlistment/RE-codes.

Issue 2 ().  The Board reviews the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge individually, on a case-by-case basis.  If such a review reveals an impropriety, relief is in order.  Regulations permit relief on equitable grounds if the Applicant’s discharge is inconsistent with standards of discipline of the Naval service.  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.    

The applicant implies he had a clean service record prior to his discharge and has had no problems since; over 30 total missed drills notwithstanding, it was noted in 2002 the Applicant was not recommended for promotion to Corporal due to a DUI conviction on 18 September 2002.  The Board is unable to adjudicate the Applicant’s statements concerning any post-service period of behavior. 

The applicant also states he submitted paperwork for a discharge under medical reasons.  However, the Applicant did not provide any documentation to support this claim.  There is credible evidence in the Applicants file to support the command’s efforts to make contact with the Applicant notifying him he missed over 25 consecutive drill periods as of October 2003 and discharge proceedings were going to be initiated.  The Applicant was also asked to report for a Competency Review Board (CRB) set for December 2003.  In November 2003, the Command continued to attempt to make contact with the Applicant via telephone and left numerous messages requesting a phone call back; the requests were unanswered.  The Applicant failed to report as directed for his CRB and also failed to make any verbal or written contact with his Command concerning the CRB or to provide information concerning his status.  The Command finally made contact with the Applicant in December 2003 (after the CRB date had passed) at which time the Applicant indicated he did not plan or expect to drill any more for personal reasons.  There was no mention on record of the Applicant discussing any medical reason for his lack of participation or as the reason he missed the CRB hearing. 

The Command recommended an administrative discharge in February 2004 due to non-participation.   Attempts to once again notify the Applicant of these proceedings went unanswered.  The CG, 4th MARDIV approved the administrative discharge with an Other Than Honorable characterization effective 27 April 2004.  The Applicant was issued a reenlistment code of RE-4.   A change or upgrade in the discharge would be inappropriate. 

The Applicant’s conduct leading up to his discharge was marred by a continuous pattern of non-participation and lack of response to communications from his command requesting an update on his situation.  After over 30 total consecutive missed drill periods the command had no choice but to process for discharge and did so within all applicable criteria established in DoD Directive 1215.14, Reserve Component Member Participation Policy; MCO P1001R.1, Marine Corps Reserve Administrative Management Manual; and MCO P1900.16_, Marine Corps Separations and Retirement Manual.   

After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Service Record, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found that    

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A.  Paragraph 6213 of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16E), effective 01 Sep 2001 until Present.

B.  Marine Corps Reserve Administrative Management Manual, MCO P1001R.1, Chapter 3, Reserve Participation and Administrative Procedures, paragraph 3300.

C.  Table 6‑1 of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16F), effective 01 Sep 2001, Guide for Characterization of Service.

D.  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.

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