ex-, USMC 

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received:  20090508
Characterization of Service Received:    
Narrative Reason for Discharge:    
Authority for Discharge:  MARCORSEPMAN 

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

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive:	NONE		Active:	NONE

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment:  19970128	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Months
Date of Discharge:  20000830	Highest Rank:  
Length of Service:
	Active:    Year(s)    Month(s)  15  Day(s)
	Inactive:    Year(s)    Month(s)  17  Day(s)
Education Level:  	AFQT:  62
MOS:  0311
Proficiency/Conduct Marks (# of occasions):   () /  ()	Fitness Reports:  

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	Rifle   AFRM SMCRM

Periods of UA/CONF:  

NJP:  

SCM:  

SPCM:  

CC:  

Retention Warning Counseling:  
- 19980503:	For unexcused absence from regularly scheduled drills.
- 19981004:	For unexcused absence from regularly scheduled drills.

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.  Wants to become a Marine officer.
2.  Wrongfully separated and discharge was too harsh.
3.  Personal problems impaired his ability to serve.
4.  Post-service conduct warrants consideration.

Decision

Date:  20100204		Location: Washington D.C.	 Representation: 

By a vote of  the Characterization shall  .
By a vote of  the Narrative Reason shall  FAILURE TO PARTICIPATE.

Discussion

The NDRB, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge, is authorized to change the character of service and the reason for discharge if such change is warranted.  In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the Applicant.  The Applicant’s record of service included two 6105 counseling warnings, but no evidence of any misconduct that resulted in nonjudicial punishment or court-martial.  In the notification of separation proceedings letter of 17 February 2000, the commanding officer noted that the Applicant had missed 33 drills between 5 December 1998 through 9 January 2000.  Based on these unexcused absences, his command administratively processed him for separation. The command sent the notification of separation proceedings to the Applicant’s house via certified mail on 17 February 2000, and it was signed for on 24 February 2000. The command never received the Acknowledgement of Rights from the Applicant.  Subsequently, the Applicant was administratively separated from the Marine Corps per Commander, Marine Force Reserves letter of 5 July 2000.

Issue 1:  (Nondecisional) The Applicant wants to “become an officer of Marines.”  The NDRB has no jurisdiction over reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Navy, Marine Corps, or any other of the Armed Forces, and is not authorized to change a reenlistment code.  Refer to the Addendum paragraph, Reenlistment/RE-code, for more information.

Issue 2:  (Decisional) ()  .  The Applicant contends he was wrongfully separated and his discharge was too harsh. After reviewing the evidence of record, the NDRB determined the Applicant met the requirements to be administratively separated for unsatisfactory participation in the Ready Reserve, and the awarded characterization of service is warranted.

Issue 3:  (Decisional) ()  .  The Applicant contends personal problems impaired his ability to serve.  The Applicant claims that he had to care for his ailing grandmother, did not have a personal vehicle, his grandmother’s vehicle broke down, he lost his part-time job because of no transportation, there was no public transportation route near his reserve unit, and he had relationship issues with his girlfriend.  The Applicant stated he did communicate his issues with his chain of command and was told he would receive a hardship discharge.  The NDRB found no documentation, nor did the Applicant provide any documentation that he submitted a request for separation due to hardship.  Other than his statement, the Applicant provided no documentation to verify his hardship issues.  The NDRB determined that the Applicant’s statements alone, without sufficient documentary evidence, are not enough to form a basis of relief.

Issue 4:  (Decisional) ()  .  The Applicant stated he is married with four children, will graduate with honors from Strayer University in 2009, volunteers at a local church helping their little league sports teams, mentors and tutors youth in the area, earned a certificate in collision repair and refinishing, and is working part-time at a fast food restaurant. He provided seven references, a criminal background check, and unofficial transcripts from his university. The NDRB considers post-service conduct to determine if the misconduct committed during active duty was indicative of the Applicant's character or an aberration.  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 civilian life.  While the Board opined that the Applicant’s post-service efforts appear noteworthy, the Board determined the Applicant did not provide sufficient post-service documentary evidence to form a basis of relief as he was encouraged to do via the DD 293 worksheet.  To warrant an upgrade the Applicant’s post-service efforts need to be more encompassing.  

Summary:  After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service,  record entries, and discharge process, the Board found  Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall   and the narrative reason for separation shall remain .

The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing for a period of fifteen years from the date of his discharge.  The Applicant is directed to the Addendum, specifically the paragraphs titled Additional Reviews, Automatic Upgrades, and Post-Service Conduct.

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A.  Paragraph 6213 of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16E), effective 18 August 1995 until 31 August 2001.

B.  Marine Corps Reserve Administrative Management Manual, MCO P1001R.1, Chapter 3, Reserve Participation and Administrative Procedures, paragraph 300.

C.  Table 6-1 of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16E), effective 18 August 1995, 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 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:  After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application is received at the NDRB within 15 years of the Applicant’s 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.  There are veterans organizations such as the American Legion and the Disabled American Veterans that are willing to provide guidance to former service members in their efforts to obtain a discharge upgrade.  If a former member has been discharged for more than 15 years, has already been granted a personal appearance hearing or has otherwise exhausted their 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 U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determines eligibility for post-service benefits, not the NDRB.  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 NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment or educational opportunities.  Regulations limit the NDRB’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 BCNR can make changes to reenlistment codes.  Additionally, the NDRB 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 is processed subsequently for an administrative involuntary separation or is referred to a court martial for misconduct, the disability evaluation is suspended pending the outcome of the non-disability proceedings.  If the action includes either a punitive or administrative discharge for misconduct or for any basis wherein an Other Than Honorable discharge is authorized, 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 BCNR can grant this type of narrative reason change.

Automatic Upgrades - There is no law or regulation that provides for an unfavorable discharge to be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct subsequent to leaving naval service.  

Post-Service Conduct:  The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge.  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 support a post-service conduct upgrade includes, but is not limited to: a verifiable continuous employment record; marriage and children’s birth certificates (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 at 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  in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member’s overall character.

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 NDRB 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