ex-, USMC 

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received:  20101110
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)	19950831 - 19950911  	Active:	

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment:  19950912	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Months
Date of Discharge:  19961210	Highest Rank:  
Length of Service:    Year(s)    Month(s)  29  Day(s)
Education Level:  	AFQT:  63
MOS:  0311
Proficiency/Conduct Marks (# of occasions):   () /  ()	Fitness Reports:  

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	NDSM

Periods of CONF:  19961011 - 19961205 (56 days)

NJP:  

- 19960322:	Article  (UA - 2200, 19960308 to 1800, 19960310, 1 day)
	Article 92 (Disobey lawful order)
	Specification 1: Going over to the Permanent Personnel BEQs
	Specification 2:  Not returning at 2200 on 19960308 when liberty was secured
	Awarded:    Suspended:  

- 19960624:	Article  (UA from appointed place of duty)
	Article  (Disobey a lawful order), 2 specifications
	Awarded:    Suspended:  

- 19960702:	Article  (UA), 2 specifications
	Specification 1: Absent from restriction muster 0700-0721, 19960629
	Specification 2: Absent from restriction muster 0900-0921, 19960629
	Article 112 (Drinking alcohol while on duty), 19960628
	Awarded:    Suspended:  

- 19960829:	Article  (UA from restriction muster 2000-2020, 19960711)
	Article  (Disrespectful to 1st Lt by his demeanor, facial expressions, and failure to respond to questions by 1st Lt)
	Article 134 (General Order), 2 specifications
	Specification 1: Break restriction, 19960711
	Specification 2: Drunk and disorderly, 19960711
	Awarded:    Suspended:   

SCM:  	SPCM:  	CC:  

Retention Warning Counselings:  

- 19960205:	For demonstrating an unacceptable behavior and a poor example for a Marine in that you violated Article 86, Unauthorized absence, for firewatch from 2000-2400, 19960203.

- 19960226:	For being absent from appointed place of duty from 2000-2300, 19960216 and being found drunk on post as weekend firewatch at 0130, 19960218.

- 19960322:	For failing to obey a direct order from SAC Company Commanding Officer by going over to the permanent personnel BEQs and failure to obey a lawful order given by SSGT by not returning at 2200 when liberty was secured.

- 19960625:	For your blatant lack of discipline, professional judgment, and moral courage.  You demonstrated a lack of discipline by failing to obey lawful orders issued by the CO and failed to sign out in the liberty log.  You demonstrated a lack of professional judgment by choosing to absent yourself from your place of duty on 19960610.  You demonstrated a lack of moral courage by your inability to refrain from excessive alcohol consumption.  Also, your inability to admit your mistakes and your attempts to pass the blame to other Marines further demonstrated your lack of moral courage.  These actions resulted in NJP for Articles 86 and 92.  Your actions have betrayed the special trust and confidence that is the hallmark in the character of all Marines.  You are further counseled that your conduct will not be tolerated or accepted.

- 19960703:	For the following deficiencies: After being placed on restriction at NJP for Articles 86 and 92, you demonstrated a complete disregard for the orders and regulations pursuant to that restriction.  You displayed a lack of moral courage, judgment, and discipline by consuming alcohol while on duty.  Furthermore, you absented yourself from restriction muster on two separate occasions.  Your actions demonstrate your inability to link up to the standards of the Marine Corps.  These actions resulted in your receiving NJP for Articles 86 and 112.  Your disregard for orders and regulations are a detriment to the good order and discipline of a military unit and will not be tolerated.  Your actions are inconsistent with the high moral character and standards of the United States Marine Corps.

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214
The NDRB did note administrative error(s) on the original DD Form 214:

	 Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, should read:  “NATIONAL DEFENSE SERVICE MEDAL”
	  “MISCONDUCT”

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:		Rehabilitation/Treatment:		Criminal Records:	
	Personal Documentation:		Community Service:		References:	
	Department of VA letter:		Other Documentation:	
		Additional Statements:
	From Applicant:		From/To Representation:		From/To Congress member:	

Pertinent Regulation/Law
A.  Paragraph 6210, MISCONDUCT, of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16E), effective 
18 August 1995 until 30 January 1997. 

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.

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

Applicant’s Issues

The Applicant did not state any issues, though he did write the word “foot” in Block 6 (Issues) on his DD Form 293.

Decision

Date:  20111026		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 governmental affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the Applicant.  The Applicant did not identify any decisional issues for the Board’s consideration.  However, the Board did complete a thorough review of the circumstances that led to  discharge and the discharge process to ensure  discharge met the pertinent standards of equity and propriety.  The Applicant’s record of service included five 6105 retention counseling warnings and four  for  of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 86 (Absence without leave, 5 specifications), Article 89 (Disrespect toward superior commissioned officer), Article 92 (Failure to obey an order or regulation, 2 specifications), Article 112 (Drunk on duty), and Article 134 (General Article, 2 specifications).  Based on the offenses committed by the Applicant,  command administratively processed  for separation.  When notified of administrative separation processing using the  procedure on 30 Aug 1996, the Applicant waived  rights to consult with a qualified counsel, submit a written statement, and request an administrative separation board.  In early September 1996, the Applicant was screened and determined to be alcohol dependent.  He was admitted to Level III in-patient rehabilitation treatment on 3 Sep 1996 but was discharged on 18 Sep 1996 as a rehabilitation treatment failure.  In early October 1996, the record revealed that the Applicant violated UCMJ Article 86 (UA), Article 92 (Consumed alcohol while on restriction), and Article 134 (Drunk and disorderly conduct).  He was placed in pre-trial confinement on 10 Oct 1996 and subsequently given a mental competency exam (RCM 706) to determine his competency for trial by courts-martial.  The Applicant was diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder NOS (not otherwise specified) and alcohol dependence with physiological dependence and early remission.  The physician stated the Applicant was responsible for his behavior, but that at the time of his misconduct, he had a severe mental disease that substantially diminished his ability to approximate and quantify wrongfulness of conduct.  On 4 Dec 1996, the 7th Marine Regiment Legal Officer recommended to the 1st Marine Division Staff Judge Advocate that the Applicant’s administrative separation for pattern of misconduct should proceed, but that consideration be made for a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge due to the Bipolar Disorder diagnosis.  On 5 Dec 1996, the Separation Authority directed that the Applicant be separated from the Marine Corps with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge due to Pattern of Misconduct.  The discharge was effected on 10 Dec 1996.

Summary:  After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service,  record entries and the administrative separation 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 for additional information.

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