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

 ex-PVT, USMC
Docket No. MD99-01223

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 990920, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions.  The applicant requested a personal appearance hearing discharge review.  The applicant listed the Disabled American Veterans as his representative on the DD Form 293.  In the acknowledgement letter to the applicant, he was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 000512.  After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, NDRB discerned no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the applicant’s service.  The Board’s vote was unanimous that the character of the discharge shall not change.  The discharge shall remain: UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE Misconduct – Pattern of misconduct (administrative discharge board required but waived), authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6210.3.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

1.	The applicant’s representative opinions that the treatment the applicant received by his unit was inequitable.  Due to a lack of understanding, the relationship between him and his commanding officer became adversarial.  Also, the applicant contends that due to his accomplishments in service, his discharge is improper.
2.	The applicant received a Meritorious Mast and a Letter of Appreciation.
3.	The applicant is unable to receive treatment or benefits from the VA because of his discharge.  He is also unable to advance within his job. 
4.	That the proficiency and conduct marks submitted by the JA were inaccurate.   
Documentation

In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:

Copy of DD Form 214
Applicant’s letter
4 MCI completion certificates
Completion Certificate for NBC course
Certificate of Physical Achievement
Meritorious Mast
Copy of proficiency and conduct marks
Copy of education page extracted from MCTFS

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):

	Active:   USMC		None
	Inactive:  USMCR(J)		900730 - 900819	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  900820		Date of Discharge:  931001

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:  03  01  11
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  4 

Education Level:  10			AFQT:  82

Highest Rank:  LCPL

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Proficiency:  3.7 (9)		Conduct:  3.7 (9)

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NDSM, SSDR, LOA, MM, AFER, NUC, JMUC, MUC, Rifle Expert Badge (2nd) 

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None 

Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance):

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Misconduct – Pattern of misconduct (administrative discharge board required but waived), authority:  MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6210.3.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

910430:	Not recommended for promotion to LCPL because of poor attitude towards his responsibilities as a marine and his failure to follow base regulations.

910628:	Not recommended for promotion to LCPL because of his lack of bearing and poor initiative.

910829:	Counseled concerning his dereliction of duty, to wit: sleeping while on a field exercise. Disciplinary and discharge warning issued.

910906:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92:  On 910828 violate BnO 11101.1 by having a female in his room; Article 91: On 910828 did wrongfully disobey Sgt G__ by not removing the female from his room when ordered to.
Awarded forfeiture of $204.00 per month for 1 month, restriction and 
extra duties for 14 days.  Not appealed.

910926:	Counseled concerning his suspension of driving privileges aboard MCB CamPen. Necessary corrective actions explained, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.

911108:	Counseled concerning his un-professional conduct while standing guard, specifically by showing complete disrespect for a commissioned officer. Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.

911210:	Counseled for his negligent management of personal finances, specifically bouncing a check in the sum of $120.00.  Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.

920527:	Not recommended for promotion to CPL because of his lack of leadership abilities and maturity.

921029:	Retention warning given.  You are being retained in the Naval Service, however the following deficiencies in your performance are identified as follows: lack of professionalism, leadership, judgement, reliability, obedience, self discipline and military bearing.  Corrective actions explained, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.

 930212:	Counseled for deficiencies, specifically your total lack of professionalism and disregard for authority by …a Somali child Beverage Powder mixed with Urine.  Necessary corrective actions explained.

930422:	Not recommended for promotion to CPL because of lack of professionalism, self-discipline, judgement.

930521: 	Counseled concerning his negligent discharge on the Mech Assault Course, specifically you negligently discharged your MK19. Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.

930610:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 91: On or about 930608 was disrespectful in language towards Cpl H__ by saying, “Jesus Christ, don’t you have a head?”
Awarded forfeiture of $233.00 per month for 1 month, restriction and 
extra duties for 14 days.  Forfeiture suspended for 6 months unless sooner vacated. Appealed 930610.  

930611:	Appealed denied.

930630:	Reduced to PFC due to professional incompetence. 

930803:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92:  On 930711, did fail to obey BO P5000.2H by causing his vehicle to be brought about CamPen. while on the base revocation/suspension list; violation of UCMJ Article 92: On 9300722 did fail to obey BO P5000.2H by driving on the base revocation/suspension list. Award:  Forfeiture of $400 per month for 2 month(s), restriction for 60 days, reduction to E-1.  Not appealed.

930804:	NJP imposed and suspended on 930610 is vacated and ordered executed.

930809:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct as evidenced by your (2) NJPs and numerous page 11 counseling entries for other misconduct, not punished by NJP.

930809:  	Applicant advised of his rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge Board.

930908:	Applicant waives his right to a hearing before and Administrative Discharge Board.

930809:	Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.  The factual basis for this recommendation was Pvt__’s 3 nonjudicial punishments, and administrative reduction for professional incompetence, and twelve page eleven counseling entries.

930921:	SJA review determined the case sufficient in law and fact.

930927:	GCMCA [Cmdr 1st MarDiv] directed the applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 931001 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct (A).  The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (B).  After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (C and D).

In issue 1, the Board found nothing to substantiate the applicant’s allegation that the discharge was improper.  He provided nothing to substantiate his adversarial relationship with his CO.  The Board did find that the applicant had 8 page 11 counseling entries, that could have, and should have, been punished under the UCMJ.  The applicant also received 3 NJP’s.  The applicant’s record of service clearly warrants the discharge issued.  Relief denied.

In the applicant’s issue 2, the Board determined this is without merit.  His awards were superceded by his misconduct.

The Board does not grant relief solely for the benefit of the applicant, issue 3. Normally, to permit relief, an error or injustice must have been found to have existed during the period of enlistment in question.  No such error or injustice is evident in the applicant’s service record.

In issue 4, the Board determined this to be inaccurate.  The applicant’s average proficiency and conduct marks in service and in enlistment were 3.7/3.7 respectively. Relief denied.
Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Paragraph 6210, Misconduct, of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16D), effective 27 Jun 89 until 17 Aug 95.

B.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 2, AUTHORITY/POLICY FOR DEPARTMENTAL DISCHARGE REVIEW.  

C.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 9, paragraph 9.2, PROPRIETY OF THE DISCHARGE.

D.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 9, paragraph 9.3, EQUITY OF THE DISCHARGE.

PART IV - INFORMATION FOR THE APPLICANT

If you believe that 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 Directive 1332.28, you may submit a complaint in accordance with Enclosure (5) of that Directive.  You should read Enclosure (5) of the Directive 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 Directive 1332.28 and other Decisional Documents by going online at “afls14.jag.af.mil”.  

The names, and votes of the members of the Board are recorded on the original of this document and may be obtained from the service records by writing to:

		Naval Council of Personnel Boards
		Attn:  Naval Discharge Review Board
		720 Kennon Street SE Rm 309
		Washington Navy Yard DC  20374-5023