ex-, USMC 

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received:  20101123
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:	NONE		Active:	

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment:  20031231	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Months
Date of Discharge:  20071109	Highest Rank:  
Length of Service:
	Inactive:	  Year(s)    Month(s)  3  Day(s)
	Active:	  Year(s)    Month(s)  10  Day(s)
Education Level:  	AFQT:  81
MOS:  0651
Proficiency/Conduct Marks (# of occasions):   () /  ()	Fitness Reports:  

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	Rifle  

Periods of UA/CONF:  

NJP:  	SCM:  	SPCM:  	CC:  

Retention Warning Counseling:  

- 20061013:	For unauthorized absence on 20061013 - 20061015 from IDT.  SNM is not available for signature.

- 20061104:	For unauthorized absence on 20061104 from IDT.  SNM is not available for signature.

- 20061214:	For unauthorized absence on 20061213 - 20061214 from IDT.  SNM is not available for signature.

- 20070107:	For unauthorized absence on 20070106 - 20070107 from IDT.  SNM is not available for signature.

- 20070204:	For unauthorized absence on 20070203 - 20070204 from IDT.  SNM is not available for signature.

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:	

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:  “RIFLE EXPERT BADGE, ARMED FORCES RESERVE MEDAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE SERVICE MEDAL, SEA SERVICE DEPLOYMENT RIBBON, GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM EXPEDITIONARY MEDAL, GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM SERVICE MEDAL”

The NDRB will recommend to the Commandant of the Marine Corps that the DD 214 be corrected as appropriate.

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A.  Paragraph 6213 of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16E), effective 1 September 2001 until Present.

B.  Marine Corps Reserve Administrative Management Manual, MCO P1001R.1, Chapter 3, Reserve Participation and Administrative Procedures, paragraph 3300.

C.  Table 6‑1 of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16F), effective 1 September 2001, 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.

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

Applicant’s Issues

1.	Applicant seeks a discharge upgrade to increase employment opportunities.
2.	Applicant contends she warrants a discharge upgrade due to mitigating circumstances (sexual harassment) related to her misconduct.

Decision

Date:  20120216		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 identified one decisional issue for the Board’s consideration.  The Board completed 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 counseling retention warnings for unauthorized absence (UA) from the following drill periods: 13-15 Oct 2006 (6 drills); 4 Nov 2006 (2 drills); 13-14 Dec 2006 (4 drills); 6-7 Jan 2007 (4 drills); and 3-4 Feb 2007 (number of drill periods not specified).  There was no evidence of commanding officer nonjudicial punishment (NJP) or trial by courts-martial.  The record also revealed another documented UA in which she vacated her duty post during a scheduled unit event on 9 Sep 2006.  Attempts to recall her back to the unit were unsuccessful.  On 11 Oct 2006, in an attempt to get the Applicant to return to drill, the command established contact with her via phone.  During the phone call she stated to the command representative that “she will not attend drill due to financial burden.”  On 29 Jan 2007, the Applicant was notified via certified mail of a Competency Review Board (CRB) proceeding scheduled for 3 Feb 2007 in which the command intended to reduce her rank to Private (E-1) due to unsatisfactory performance.  In her written response to the command, the Applicant elected to submit a written statement, but waived her rights to seek qualified counsel and to appear at the CRB.  She acknowledged that her waiver to appear at the CRB proceeding would result in administrative reduction in rank to E-1.  Further attempts were made via phone to contact the Applicant on 27 Feb and 3 Mar 2007, but the Applicant’s recall phone number resulted in a “phone number disconnected” message.  Based on the repeated UA offenses committed by the Applicant, and with no attempts made to rectify her standing within the drilling reserves, the Applicant’s command processed her for administrative separation.  When notified of administrative separation processing (for unsatisfactory participation/ performance in the ready reserve) using the  procedure on 4 Feb 2007, the Applicant waived  rights to consult with a qualified counsel, submit a written statement, and request an administrative separation board.  On 12 Jun 2007, the Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) for Marine Forces Reserve reviewed the Applicant’s administrative separation package and found that it was sufficient in law and fact.  Included within the SJA endorsement was the statements “21 unsat drills” and “SNM responded to the notification of separation by waiving all of her rights.”  The Applicant was discharged from the Selected Marine Corps Reserve on 9 Nov 2007 with an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge due to Unsatisfactory Performance.

:  (Nondecisional) The Applicant seeks a discharge upgrade to increase employment opportunities.  The NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment or educational opportunities as regulations limit the NDRB’s review to a determination of the propriety and equity of the discharge.

:  (Decisional) ()  .  The Applicant contends she warrants a discharge upgrade due to mitigating circumstances (sexual harassment) related to her misconduct.  The NDRB is not an investigative body, and allegations of command legal, administrative, or other impropriety should be made to the Naval Inspector General’s Office.  Allegations notwithstanding, the Board conducted a detailed review of the circumstances that led to  discharge and the discharge process to ensure  discharge met the pertinent standards of equity and propriety.  The Board, after careful analysis, could find no evidence of command impropriety.  The evidence of record does indicate that the Applicant’s command 

made numerous attempts to assist the Applicant in addressing her problems, to include Page 11 counseling (for lack of leadership, dated Oct 2006 and Nov 2006; and unacceptable conduct, dated May 2007), Para 6105 retention warnings (for unauthorized absence, dated Oct, Nov, and Dec 2006, and Jan, Feb 2007), a CRB proceeding, and multiple phone calls.  After thorough deliberation and with no evidence available to support the Applicant’s contention, the Board determined this issue to be without merit and therefore did not provide a basis for which relief could be granted.  Relief denied.

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