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

 ex-PFC, USMC
Docket No. MD04-00399

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20040105.  The Applicant requested the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable or entry level separation or uncharacterized.  The Applicant requested 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 20040817.  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/MISCONDUCT, authority:  MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6210.6.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

The Applicant presented no issues for the Board’s consideration. 

Documentation

Applicant marked the "WILL NOT BE SUBBMITTED.  PLEASE COMPLETE REVIEW BASED ON AVAILABLE SERVICE RECORDS" box concerning supporting documentation on the second page of his DD 293.

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   			None			HON
	Inactive: USMCR (J)		000807 - 010715	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  010716		Date of Discharge:  020626

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    00  09  23  (Accounts for lost time.)
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  67

Highest Rank:  PFC			MOS:  9900, Basic Marine

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Proficiency:  3.5 (3)			Conduct:  3.5 (3)	

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  None

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  20020330-20020517 (048)

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority:  MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6210.6.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

020326:	Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct.  [Inability to complete performance objectives.]  Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.  

020329:	Applicant arrived at Barracks Platoon on 21 February as an Academic Fire fighter Failure.  Since arriving at Barracks Platoon, SNM has been a substandard Marine, several UA from morning formations, not having his uniform ready for parade practices, etc.  SNM has said he does not want to be here at Goodfellow, AFB and has expressed his wishes of not being in the Marine Corps [Extracted from Barracks Manager’s letter to MarDet Commander}.  

020330:	Applicant to UA (AWOL).  

020429:	UA (AWOL) since 0001, 020330.  Applicant declared a deserted and dropped from organizational rolls.  

020517:	Applicant surrendered from UA (AWOL).  IHCA 0700, 020517.  

020606:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense as evidenced by the Applicant’s “unauthorized absence from 39 March 2002 to 17 May 2002.” 

020606:	Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights except the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation.

020618:	Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.  The factual basis for this recommendation was the Applicant’s “unauthorized absence from 39 March 2002 to 17 May 2002.”  

020619:	SJA review determined the case sufficient in law and fact.

020624:	GCMCA [Commanding General, Marine Corps Base, Camp Lejeune] directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20020626 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense (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).

The Applicant introduced no decisional issues for consideration by the Board.

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 United States Marine.  The Applicant’s service was marred by an extended period of unauthorized absence.  The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflects his disobedience of the orders and directives regulating good order and discipline in the naval service.  His actions fall well short of those required for an honorable characterization of service.  An upgrade to honorable would be inappropriate.  Relief denied.

By regulation, members discharged within the first 180 days of enlistment are given characterization of service "Uncharacterized" or entry-level separation unless there were unusual circumstances regarding performance or conduct, which would merit an a less than honorable characterization.  Applicant's service record indicates that he served beyond the 180 days.  Relief based on this request is unwarranted.

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 any 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 6210, MISCONDUCT of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16E), effective 01 September 2001 until Present). 

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