ex-, USMC

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received:  20080916
Characterization of Service Received:  
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)	19980121 - 19980909  	Active:	

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment:  19980910	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Months
Date of Discharge:  20021211	Highest Rank:  
Length of Service:    Years    Months   2  Days
Education Level:  	AFQT:  61
MOS:  2847, 2818
Proficiency/Conduct Marks (# of occasions):   () /  ()	Fitness Reports:  

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	Rifle ,  

Periods of CONF:  20020515-20020711 (58 days)

NJP:  
- 19991014:	Article 86 (Unauthorized absence - 1day)
		Awarded:      Suspended:   

- 20010601:	Article 121 (Larceny, wrongfully took a car radio from the Main Exchange)
		Awarded:       Suspended:   

- 20010926:	Article 86 (Unauthorized absence – 2 hours)
		Awarded:  RESTR EPD    Suspended:   for 6 months

SCM:  

SPCM:  

CC:  

Retention Warning Counseling:  

- 00000000:	For unsatisfactory progress while assigned to the Battalion weight control program
- 20010211:    For semi-annual pro/con marks, due while on the weight control program
- 20010601:    For violation of article 121, wrongfully took a CD from the Main Exchange
- 20010911:	For substandard progress while on the Battalion weight control program

Types of Documents Submitted/reviewed

Related to Military Service: 
              DD 214:  	                            Service/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 Congress member:    

                    Other Documentation:  

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

Applicant’s Issues

1.  Administrative reduction of rank due to weight control issues.
2.  Discharge inequitable due to medical issues.

Decision

Date:  20090312    		Location: Washington D.C.	 Representation: 

By a vote of  the Characterization shall  .
By a vote of  the Narrative Reason shall  MISCONDUCT.

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 petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR), 2 Navy Annex, Washington, DC 20370-5100 for further review regarding .

:  ()  . The Applicant contends his discharge was inequitable due to a medical condition caused by a motor vehicle accident that occurred early in his enlistment.  The Applicant has requested an upgrade in his characterization to “Honorable”.  An “Honorable” discharge is warranted when the quality of a member’s service has met the standards of accepted conduct and performance of duty for military personnel.  A discharge “Under Other Than Honorable Conditions” is warranted when a member engages in conduct involving one or more acts or omissions that constitute a significant departure from the conduct expected of members 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’s record of service was marred by four retention warnings and three NJPs for violations of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), Article 86 (Absence without leave) and Article 121 (Larceny).  These are considered serious offenses, punishable by punitive discharge and confinement if adjudicated by a special or general court-martial.  The command did not pursue a punitive discharge but opted instead for an administrative discharge. 

The Board is aware of the Applicant’s medical issues that caused him to be on light duty and subsequent assignment to the weight control program.  Although the Battalion Surgeon recommended your administrative separation for your medical condition, the Commanding Officer reserves the right to retain the individual, as long as he understands that said Marine will be unable to perform the full duties of a Marine.  The Commanding Officer exercised his right and retained the Applicant on active duty.  However, not being able to perform your full duties does not excuse a Marine to go from 182 pounds, 8 pounds over your required weight of 175 pounds, to 227 pounds.  This is a weight gain of 45 pounds, which is 53 pounds over your required weight.  Consequently, the Applicant was administratively reduced in rank twice for failure to maintain Marine Corps weight standards.  The Board is also aware of your mental health issues, which diagnosed you with a Personality Disorder, Not Otherwise Specified, with antisocial and borderline features.  The command did start the administrative separation process due to the Applicant’s mental health issues.  During this time, the Applicant was the subject of another NJP, which disrupted the separation process.  

In May 2002, the command started the administrative process.  This process appears to have been disrupted because the Applicant was sent to the brig from 15 May 2002 to 11 July 2002 for an unknown reason based on a confinement physical and time lost per his DD Form 214, which the dates correlate with one another.  For the edification of the Applicant, any misconduct that occurs while other processes are in work, such as; administrative separations due to medical or mental health issues, will take precedence when determining the Applicant’s character of service.  The Board determined the Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflected a significant departure from the conduct expected of a service member and the awarded characterization was appropriate; an upgrade would be inappropriate.

The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge.  However, there is no law or regulation, which provides 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.  Outstanding post-service conduct, 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, is considered during Board reviews.  Documentation to help support a post-service conduct upgrade includes, but is not limited to: a verifiable continuous employment record; marriage and children’s birth certificate (if applicable); character witness statements; documentation of community or church service; certification of non-involvement with civil authorities; evidence of financial stability or letters of good standing from banks, credit card companies, or other financial institutions; attendance or completion of higher education (official transcripts) and documentation of a drug-free lifestyle.  The Applicant is advised that completion of these items alone does not guarantee the upgrade of an unfavorable discharge, as each discharge is reviewed by the Board on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member’s overall character.

Besides the Applicant’s statement on the DD Form 293, he provided in-service and post-service medical documentation on his behalf.  However, to warrant an upgrade the Applicant’s post service efforts need to be more encompassing.  The Applicant could have produced additional evidence as stated in the above paragraph with the full understanding completion of these items alone does not guarantee an upgrade.  The Board determined the characterization of service received, “Under Other Than Honorable Conditions”, was an appropriate characterization considering the length of service and the UCMJ violations involved, and based on the limited post-service documentation provided 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 6210, MISCONDUCT, of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16F), effective 
1 September 2001 until Present.

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 violations of the UCMJ, Articles 86 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