ex-, USMC

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received:  20080925
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)	20001028 - 20010122  	Active:	

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment:  20010123	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Months
Date of Discharge:  20061019	Highest Rank:  
Length of Service:    Years    Months   27  Days
Education Level:  	AFQT:  33
MOS:  0311
Proficiency/Conduct Marks (# of occasions):   () /  ()	Fitness Reports:  

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	Rifle  Pistol       

Periods of UA/CONF:  CONF 20040312-20040520 (69 days).

NJP:  
- 20011019:	Article 86 (UA)
		Awarded:     Suspended:   [Vacated 28 Jan 2002]

- 20020124:	Article 92   (Fail to obey a lawful general order, by consuming while under age of 21)
	Article 134 (Drunk at the barracks which conduct was of nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces)
		Awarded:     Suspended:   

- 20020322:	Article 91 (Contempt and disrespectful in language toward a Petty Officer)
	Article 92 (Fail to obey a lawful general order)
		Awarded:      Suspended:   

- 20020425:	Article 134 (Breaking restriction)
		Awarded:    Suspended:   

- 20040311:	Article 92   (Fail to obey a lawful general order, operated a vehicle under the influence of alcohol)
	Article 108 (Military property, while operating a vehicle did damage a government sign)
Article 111 (Drunken driving, physically control a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol resulting in       a single vehicle accident)
	Article 112 (Drunk on duty, reported to his place of duty under the influence of alcohol)
	Article 134 (Neglected to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, operate a vehicle with suspended driving privileges, without insurance, and without registration)
		Awarded:     Suspended:   

SCM:  
- 20040128:	Article 112a (Drug use, wrongful use of amphetamine and methamphetamine (20031208)), 2 specifications
	Sentence:  (20040129-20040220 (22 days)) 

SPCM:  
- 20040521:   Article 112a (Drug use, wrongful use of a controlled substance: methamphetamine on 20040210)
	Sentence:  BCD; Confinement 60 days.

CC:  

Retention Warning Counseling:  

- 20010914:	For underage drinking, specifically; wrongfully consuming alcohol in the barracks while under age of 21.
- 20011019:	For violation of Article 86 (UA).
- 20020124:	For violation of Articles 92 and 134 (Failure to obey order, regulation).
- 20020322:	For violation of Article 91 (Insubordinate conduct) and 92 (Failure to obey order, regulation).
- 20020425:	For violation of Article 134 (Breaking of restriction)
- 20040127:	For illegal drug involvement, amphetamine and methamphetamine usage on 20031208
- 20040224: 	For Drug abuse and for administrative separation due to drug abuse.
- 20040301:	For loss of military I.D. card. 
- 20040308:	For driving while intoxicated (DUI), driving without insurance, driving while under suspended base privileges, leaving the scene of an accident and destruction of government property while aboard Camp Pendleton. 

Types of Documents Submitted/reviewed

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

		- Record of Trial from 26 April, 21 May 2004

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.  Deserves a better discharge due to his service in Iraq.

Decision

Date:  20090402		Location: Washington D.C.	 Representation: 

By a vote of  the Characterization shall  .
By a vote of  the Narrative Reason shall  COURT-MARTIAL.

Discussion

:  ()  .  The Applicant contends he deserves better than a “Bad Conduct” discharge after serving many years in the Marine Corps and taking part in Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003.  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 Applicant’s record of service was marred by 9 retention warnings, 5 NJP’s, a SCM and a SPCM for violations of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ):  Article 86 (UA); Article 91 (Contempt and disrespectful in language toward a Petty Officer); Article 92 (Fail to obey a lawful general order); Article 108 (Damage of military property, while operating a vehicle did damage a government sign); Article 111 (Drunken driving); Article 112 (Drunk on duty); Article 112a (Drug use, wrongful use of a controlled substance: amphetamine and methamphetamine) and Article 134 (Disorderly conduct,  drunkenness;  breaking restriction and operating a vehicle with suspended driving privileges, without insurance and without registration).  The NDRB advises the Applicant certain serious offenses, even though isolated, warrant separation from the service in order to maintain proper order and discipline.  Violation of Article 112a is one such offense requiring mandatory separation regardless of time in service or grade.  Violations of this policy result in, at a minimum, mandatory processing for an administrative separation which usually results in an unfavorable characterization of discharge or, at a maximum, a punitive discharge and possible confinement if adjudicated and awarded as part of a sentence by a special or general court-martial.  Additionally, violations of Article 91, Article 92, Article 111 and Article 112 are also serious offenses.  The total of these violations, beginning in October 2001 and continuing until May 2004 constitute a significant departure from the conduct expected of a U. S. Marine.  The Board acknowledges the fact the Applicant deployed to Iraq however, this service does not negate the lengthy continuous list of UCMJ violations. 

The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in consideration if a case warrants clemency.  Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent such matters provide a basis for clemency, are 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; attending 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 clemency will be granted, as each discharge is reviewed by the Board on a case by case basis to determine if post service conduct justifies clemency.  The Applicant’s case was considered under the pertinent standards of equity to determine if any factors in this particular case merited clemency.  

Besides the Applicants statement on the DD Form 293, he provided service documents and additional references as evidence on his behalf.  However; to warrant clemency the Applicant’s post service efforts need to be more encompassing.  For example, the Applicant could have produced additional evidence as stated above to help substantiate his case as statements alone from the Applicant cannot be used as the sole justification for the Board to reach a clemency decision.  Although the Applicant produced some documentation, the Board determined this does not meet the high standard required to warrant clemency.  

After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Service and Medical Record Entries, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found clemency was not warranted and the sentence awarded the Applicant at his court-martial was appropriate for the numerous offenses he committed.

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A.  Paragraph 1105, DISCHARGE ADJUDGED BY SENTENCE OF COURT-MARTIAL, 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 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 violations of the UCMJ:  Article 86 (UA); Article 91 (Contempt and disrespectful in language 
toward a Petty Officer); Article 92 (Fail to obey a lawful general order); Article 108 (Damage of military property, while operating a vehicle did damage a government sign); Article 111 (Drunken driving); Article 112 (Drunk on duty); Article 112a 
(Drug use, wrongful use of a controlled substance); Article 134 (Disorderly conduct, drunkenness; breaking restriction; operating a vehicle with suspended driving privileges, without insurance and without registration).

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