ex-, USMC 

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received:  20090617
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)	19970604 - 19970721  	Active:	

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment:  19970722	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Months
Date of Discharge:  20001121	Highest Rank:  
Length of Service:    Year(s)    Month(s)  27  Day(s)
Education Level:  	AFQT:  51
MOS:  0411
Proficiency/Conduct Marks (# of occasions):   () /  ()	Fitness Reports:  

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	Rifle 

Periods of UA/CONF:  

NJP:  
- 19980421:	Article  (Absent from organization 19980316-19980414, 29 days)
	Article 87 (Missed movement through design 19980317) 
	Awarded:   30 DAYS CC Suspended: 14 DAYS CC

SCM:  

SPCM:  
- 19990212:	Article  (Absent from organization), 2 specifications
	Specification 1: (19980616-19980817, 62 days, surrendered)
	Specification 2: (19980831-19981208, 99 days, surrendered)
	Article 112a (Wrongfully use marijuana)
	Sentence: BCD CONF 80 days (19981208-19990211, 65 days)  

CC:  

Retention Warning Counseling:  NFIR

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

The NDRB did note administrative error(s) on the original DD Form 214:

	  “(29) 980316-980414; (62) 980616-980817; (99) 980831-981208; (65) 981208-990211 ”
	
The NDRB will recommend to the Commandant of the Marine Corps that the DD 214 be corrected as appropriate.

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:	

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A.  Paragraph 1105, DISCHARGE ADJUDGED BY SENTENCE OF 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 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.

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

Applicant’s Issues

1.  Not able to keep or find a job.
2.  Not able to afford a lawyer.
3.  Was young and not thinking clearly.
4.  In-service conduct warrants consideration.
5.  Post-service conduct warrants consideration.

Decision

Date:  20100520		Location: Washington D.C.	 Representation: 

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

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 Government affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the Applicant.  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.   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.  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 included one nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 86 (Absence without leave, 29 days) and Article 87 (Missed movement through design); and one special court-martial (SPCM) for violations of the UCMJ: Article 86 (Absence without leave more than 30 days, 2 specifications: 62 days, surrendered and 99 days, surrendered) and Article 112a (Wrongful use of a controlled substance, marijuana, amount not found in record).  (The Applicant required a pre-service drug waiver for using marijuana twice prior to entering the Marine Corps, and acknowledged his complete understanding of the Marine Corps Policy Concerning Illegal Use of Drugs on 3 June 1997.)  Based on the offenses committed by the Applicant, his command convened a SPCM.  The Applicant pled and was found him guilty of the Article 86 and 112a charges and his sentence included 80 days of confinement, forfeiture of pay, reduction in rank to E-1, and a Bad Conduct discharge.

Issue 1:  (Nondecisional) The Applicant contends he is not able to keep or find a job.  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.

Issue 2:  (Decisional) ()  .  The Applicant contends he could not afford a lawyer.  Per the record of trial, the Applicant was represented by military counsel at no charge to him and had the right to be represented by civilian counsel at no expense to the United States.  Although the Applicant may not have been able to afford civilian counsel, he did have counsel during his SPCM.  The NDRB determined this issue is without merit. 

Issue 3:  (Decisional) ()  .  The Applicant contends he was young and not thinking clearly.  The NDRB recognizes that many of our servicemembers are young at the time they enlist for service but still manage to serve honorably.  While we understand some members may be less mature than others, the NDRB does not view a member’s claim of youth or immaturity to be a mitigating factor or a sufficient reason for misconduct.  Relief denied.  

Issue 4:  (Decisional) ()  .  The Applicant contends he “received honors/badge while in active duty.”  The NDRB advises the Applicant certain serious offenses, despite a member’s record of service, warrant separation from the service to maintain proper order and discipline.  Article 112a is one such offense requiring, at a minimum, mandatory processing for an administrative separation, which usually results in an unfavorable characterization of discharge.  The NDRB opined that the combination of Article 86 and 112a violations were the reasons the Applicant’s commanding officer chose to pursue confinement and punitive discharge through a special court-martial. The NDRB determined the awarded characterization of service was warranted.  Relief denied.

Issue 5:  (Decisional) (Clemency)  .  The Applicant stated he is not a felon, loves his country, has never been a threat to society, and deserves a second chance in life to make a better life for himself and his children.  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.   Besides the Applicant’s statement on the DD Form 293, he failed to provide any additional documentation and evidence on his behalf to support a post-service conduct review.  The Applicant’s statements alone, without sufficient documentary evidence, are not enough to form a basis of relief.  On page 4, Item 8, in the instructions for completion of DD Form 293, the Applicant is notified to submit evidence "which substantiate or relate directly to your issues in Item 6" (Issues: Why an upgrade or change is requested and justification for the request).  Additionally, upon receipt of the Applicant's DD Form 293, the NDRB mails an acceptance letter that includes Information Concerning Review Procedures, which discusses the submission of additional documents in paragraph 3, Submission of Evidence, and in the last section on page 4, Information Pertaining to a Review Based Upon Post-Service Conduct.  However, even if the Applicant could have produced additional evidence to support a review based on his post-service conduct, the Applicant must have a full understanding that post-service conduct alone does not guarantee an upgrade.  

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  discharge.  The Applicant is directed to the Addendum, specifically the paragraphs titled Additional Reviews, Automatic Upgrades, and Post-Service Conduct.

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