ex-, USMC

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received:  20080618
Characterization of Service Received:  UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS
Narrative Reason for Discharge:  
Authority for Discharge:  MARCORSEPMAN 

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

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive: USMCR (DEP) 19970910 - 19981012  		Active:  

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment:  19981013	Period of Enlistment:   Years   Months	Date of Discharge:  20001231
Length of Service:    Years    Months  00  Days	Education Level:  	Age at Enlistment:  	AFQT:  84
MOS:  0341	Highest Rank:  	Fitness Reports:  
Proficiency/Conduct Marks (# of occasions):		/ 
Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):  LOC Rifle  Pistol 

Periods of UA/CONF:  UA:  20001110-20001115
                                     CONF:  20001115-20001130

NJPs:	
20000504:  Article 107 (False official statement)
                   Article 121 (Larceny)
                   Article 134 (Minor in possession of alcohol)
                   Awarded:     .  Suspended:  .  Vacated 20001018.

6105 Counseling:  
20000504:  For my recent NJP on 20000504 violations of Articles 107 (False official statement), 121 (Larceny), and
                   134 (Minor in possession). 

20000727:	For demonstrated financial irresponsibility, specifically, writing bad checks in the amount of $88.96, failure to make loan payments to Pioneer Military Lending, and failure to maintain sufficient funds in my account with Fort Sill National Bank.  In spite of repeated informal counseling by my platoon sergeant and platoon commander I have failed to correct my financial deficiencies.  

20001018:	For my failure to obey Washington State motor vehicle laws, specifically, driving while my license privileges were suspended. 

Types of Documents Submitted/reviewed

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/employment opportunities. 
2.  Education opportunities.
3.  Punishment was too severe for the misconduct/not the same as others in his command.
4.  Medical issues.
5.  Youth and immaturity.

Decision

Date:  20080925		Location:  Washington D.C.	 Representation:  

By a vote of  the Characterization shall  .
By a vote of  the Narrative Reason shall  IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT-MARTIAL.

Discussion

:  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, specifically the paragraphs concerning s and  regarding .

:  ()  .  The Applicant contends his punishment was too severe for the misconduct he committed, and more severe than others received in his command.  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 Board must consider each case on a case-by-case basis; therefore, the Board is unable to consider the Applicant’s contention he was treated more harshly than other members of his command.  The Applicant’s record of service is marred by three retention warnings and one NJP for violation of Uniform Code of Military Justice, Articles 107, 121, and 134.  The Applicant agreed to an administrative discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial for a period of unauthorized absence.  Violations of Articles 107 and 121 are considered to be serious offenses, punishable by punitive discharge and confinement if adjudicated by a special or general court-martial.  The command opted instead for a separation in lieu of trial and all documentation contained in the Applicant’s service record indicate he understood the procedures and consequences of such action.  The Board determined an upgrade would be inappropriate.

:  ()  .  The Applicant contends his medical problems contributed to his problems with his command.  Specifically, he believes he was labeled a malingerer because of his back pains, and was forced to attend alcohol rehabilitation.  The record of evidence shows the Applicant received his NJP and two retention warnings prior to alcohol rehabilitation.  The Board rejects the Applicant’s contention that his medical problems mitigated his misconduct.

 Issue 5:  (Equity) RELIEF NOT WARRANTED.  The Applicant contends his problems can be attributed to mistakes made due to his youth and immaturity.  While he may feel his youth was the underlying cause of his misconduct, the record of evidence does not demonstrate the Applicant was not responsible for his misconduct or should not be held accountable for his actions due to youth or immaturity.  The Board determined an upgrade would be inappropriate.

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

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A.  Paragraph 6419, SEPARATION IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT-MARTIAL, of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16E), effective 18 August 1995 until 31 August 2001.

B.  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.

C.  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 107 and 121.

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 or is referred to a court-martial 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 other medical related reasons.”  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 special 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.  The NDRB does not have the jurisdictional authority to review a discharge or dismissal resulting from a general court-martial.

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