ex-, USMC 

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received:  20110510
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)	19990629 - 20000625  	Active:	  20000626 - 20031001 HON
				  20031002 - 20080729 HON

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment:  20080730	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Months
Date of Discharge:  20100319	Highest Rank:  
Length of Service:    Year(s)    Month(s)  19  Day(s)
Education Level:  	AFQT:  55
MOS:  5811
Fitness Reports:  

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	Rifle  (2nd Award) Pistol   (Iraq)  (2)  (2) NMCOSR MCRR  (w/2 campaign stars)  (2)   (Iraq)   (3) CoC (Individual Award) (3) CoA (2) LoA

Periods of UA/CONF:  

NJP:  	SPCM:  	CC:  	Retention Warning Counseling:  

SCM:  

- 20100202:	Article 93 (Cruelty and Maltreatment, )
	Specification 1:  Maltreat his subordinate Marines on diverse occasions between on or about 1 February 2009 and 11 June 2009
	Specification 2:  Maltreat his subordinate Marine on or about 5 June 2009
	Specification 3:  Cruel toward his subordinate Marine on diverse occasions on or about 1 May 2009 and 5 June 2009
	Specification 4:  Maltreat his subordinate Marine between on or about 1 May 2009 and 5 June 2009
	Specification 5:  Maltreat his subordinate Marine between on or about 1 March 2009 and 30 May 2009
	Article  (, , strike his subordinate Marine between on or about 1 April 2009 and 30 May 2009)
	Sentence: RIR E-5  

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 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 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.	The Applicant contends he was biased against and received unfair judgment.
2.	The Applicant contends his record of service outweighs his misconduct.
3.	The Applicant contends significant personal stress in his life led to his misconduct.
4.	The Applicant contends that Veterans Affairs (VA) doctors diagnosed him with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) after his discharge.
5.	The Applicant contends his post-service conduct is worthy of consideration for an upgrade.

Decision

Date:  20120808		Location:  Washington D.C.	Representation:  

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

Discussion

As a result of the Applicant’s claim of PTSD, in accordance with U.S. Code, Title X, Section 1553 (d)(1), the Naval Discharge Review Board included a member who is a physician, clinical psychologist, or psychiatrist.  In accordance with section 1553 (d)(2), the service secretary expedited a final decision and accorded the case sufficient priority to achieve an expedited resolution.  The Applicant participated in Operation Iraqi Freedom II with I MEF (20040206 - 20040913) and Operation Iraqi Freedom IV with II MEF (20050304 - 20051004).

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 Board did complete a thorough review of the circumstances that led to  discharge and the discharge process to ensure the pertinent standards of equity and propriety were met.  The Applicant’s record of service included one summary court-martial for  of the UCMJ: Article 93 (Cruelty and maltreatment, ) and Article 128 (Assault, 1 specification).  Based on the ,  command administratively processed  for separation.  When notified of administrative processing, the Applicant exercised his rights to consult with a qualified counsel and submit a written statement but   right to request an administrative board.

:  (Decisional) ()  .  The Applicant contends he was biased against and received unfair judgment.  The government enjoys a presumption of regularity in the conduct of its affairs.  The Applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support his issue.  There is no evidence in the record, nor has the Applicant produced any evidence, to support the contention that his Summary Court-Martial or subsequent discharge were unfair or as the result of bias.  The Applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity in this case.  If the Applicant believed his Summary Court-Martial was unfair, he had the opportunity to appeal it and also to present his case before an administrative separation board after being notified of administrative separation processing.  The Applicant waived his right to appear before a separation board.  The NDRB determined that the Applicant’s discharge was both proper and equitable.  Relief denied.

:  (Decisional) ()  .  The Applicant contends his record of service outweighs his misconduct.  Despite a servicemember’s prior record of service, certain serious offenses, even though isolated, warrant separation from the Marine Corps to maintain proper order and discipline.  Violation of Articles 93 and 128 are such offenses that warrant processing for administrative separation regardless of grade, performance, or time in service.  This 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.  However, his command did not pursue a punitive discharge but opted instead for the more lenient administrative discharge.  The NDRB found the characterization of the Applicant’s discharge was equitable and consistent with the characterization of discharge given others in similar circumstances.  Relief denied.

:  (Decisional) ()  .  The Applicant contends stress and emotional problems resulting from his spouse’s medical complications, his parents’ health concerns, along with his own medical problems led to the misconduct for which he was separated.  The NDRB conducted an exhaustive review of the records and found no evidence, nor did the Applicant provide any, to indicate he attempted to use the numerous services available for service members who undergo personal problems during their enlistments, such as the Navy Chaplain, Medical or Mental Health professionals, Navy Relief Society, Family Advocacy Programs, or even the Red Cross.  The NDRB recognizes that serving in the U.S. Marine Corps is challenging.  However, all members of the Naval Services are expected to uphold the high standards of conduct as evidenced in our Core Values of Honor, Courage, and Commitment, regardless of the environment or mission in which assigned.  After careful consideration, and with no evidence to support the Applicant’s claim, the Board determined that nothing indicated that the Applicant should not be held accountable for his misconduct or that he was not responsible for his actions.  Relief denied.

Issue 4:  (Decisional) (Equity)  RELIEF NOT WARRANTED.  The Applicant contends that VA doctors diagnosed him with PTSD after his discharge.  The NDRB reviewed the VA Compensation & Pension Exam notes from 5 August 2010 that stated: “At this time, the primary psychopathology seems to be PTSD with associated alcohol abuse.”  The NDRB also reviewed his in-service records and noted that he received a diagnosis of Borderline Personality Disorder from a qualified medical authority while stationed in Japan.  After a thorough review of the Applicant’s service records, documentation provided by the Applicant, and the facts and circumstances unique to this case, the NDRB determined that his PTSD did not mitigate the misconduct that led to his separation Under Other Than Honorable Conditions.  Relief denied.

Issue 5:  (Decisional) (Equity)  RELIEF NOT WARRANTED.  The Applicant submitted four letters of character reference.  The NDRB considers 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.  The Applicant could have provided documentation as detailed in the Post-Service Conduct paragraph in the Addendum, however, completion of these items alone does not guarantee an upgrade from an unfavorable discharge as each discharge is reviewed by the Board on a case by case basis to determine if post-service conduct establishes that the in-service misconduct was an aberration.  To warrant an upgrade, the Applicant’s post-service efforts need to be more encompassing.  The Board determined that the documentation submitted by the Applicant does not demonstrate if in-service misconduct was an aberration.  The characterization of service received was appropriate considering the length of service and UCMJ violations.  Relief denied.

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  .  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), 701 South Courthouse Road, Suite 1001, Arlington, VA 22204-2490 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