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

 ex-PFC, USMC
Docket No. MD04-00302

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20031205.  The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions.  The Applicant requests a documentary record review.  The Applicant did not list a representative on his DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20040812.  After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the Applicant’s service was discovered by the NDRB.  The Board’s vote was unanimous that the character of the discharge shall not change.  The discharge shall remain: UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/VOL DIS (IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT MARTIAL), authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6419.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

The Applicant submitted no issues. 

Documentation

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

Applicant’s Authorization for Release of Confidential Information dtd Oct 20, 2003
Applicant’s Request Pertaining to Military Records dtd Oct 20, 2003
Applicant’s DD Form 214
Commander, MCB Hawaii’s ltr dtd Nov 22, 1994 (2 pages)
Applicant’s Separation Orders dtd Dec 5, 1994 (9 pages)
Applicant’s Appointment to Private First Class dtd Feb 1, 1994
Course Completion Certificate, Rifleman, dtd Feb 11, 1994

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   None
	Inactive: USMCR (J)		920910 - 930808	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  930809		Date of Discharge:  941223

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    01  03  15 (Includes lost time.)
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  70

Highest Rank:  PFC

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Proficiency:  3.4 (5)		Conduct:  3.4 (5)

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NDSM

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  25

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/VOL DIS (IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT MARTIAL), authority:  MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6419.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

940919:	Applicant UA/AWOL since 0531, 940914.

940922:	Applicant surrendered from UA/AWOL at 1730, 940919.

940922:	Applicant UA/AWOL since 0730, 940922.

941017:	Applicant surrendered from UA/AWOL at 1300, 941013.

941101:	Applicant, having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Art 27b, requested discharge for the good of the service to escape trial by court- martial.  In the request the Applicant noted that his counsel had fully explained the elements of the offenses for which he was charged and that he understood the elements of the offenses.  He further certified a complete understanding of the negative consequences of his actions and that characterization of service would be under other honorable conditions.  The Applicant admitted guilt to the following violations of the UCMJ, Article 86 (2 specifications), unauthorized absence; and Article 87, missing movement.

941116:	SJA review determined the case sufficient in law and fact.

941122:	GCMCA [Commander, Marine Corps Base Hawaii] determined that Applicant had no potential for further service, that separation in lieu of trial by court-martial was in the best interest of the service, and directed discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of conduct triable by courts-martial.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19941223 under other than honorable conditions in lieu of trial by court-martial (A and B).  The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (C).  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 (D and E).

The Applicant did not introduce any decisional issues for the Board’s consideration.  

A service characterization of under other than honorable conditions is warranted when the member’s conduct constitutes a significant departure from that expected of a member of the U. S. Marine Corps.  In a signed statement, the Applicant requested an administrative discharge under other than honorable conditions in lieu of a trial by court-martial.  He consulted with counsel and was fully advised of the implications of his request.  The Applicant understood that if discharged under other than honorable conditions, it might deprive him of virtually all veteran’s benefits based upon his current enlistment.  He also understood he might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life in situations wherein the type of service rendered or the character of discharge received from the service may have a bearing.  The Applicant stated he understood the elements of the offenses with which he was charged.  He admitted he was guilty of violating Article 86:  unauthorized absence and Article 87:  missing movement; therefore, a discharge upgrade to general (under honorable conditions) would be inappropriate.  Relief is denied.

The following is provided for the edification of the Applicant.  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 in the civilian life subsequent to leaving the service.  However, the NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacteriza-tion of a discharge.  Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent that such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the Applicant's performance and conduct during the period of service under review may be considered.  Verifiable proof of post-service accomplishments must be provided in order for the Applicant to claim post-service conduct and behavior as a reason to upgrade a less than honorable discharge.  Evidence of continuing educational pursuits, an employment record, documentation of community service, certification of non-involvement with civil authorities, and credible evidence of a substance-free lifestyle are examples of verifiable documents that may be provided to receive consideration for relief based on post-service conduct.  At this time, the Applicant has not provided sufficient documentation for the Board to consider an upgrade.
 
The Applicant is reminded that she remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received at the NDRB within 15 years from the date of her discharge.  Representation at a personal appearance hearing is recommended but not required.  

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Paragraph 6419, SEPARATION IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT-MARTIAL, of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16D), effective 
27 Jun 89 until 17 Aug 95.
 
B.  The Manual for Courts-Martial authorizes the award of a punitive discharge if adjudged as part of the sentence upon conviction by a special or general court-martial for violation of the UCMJ, Article 86, Unauthorized absence; and Article 87, Missing movement.

C.  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.  

D.  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.

E.  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