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

 ex-Pvt, USMC
Docket No. MD04-00598

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20040224.  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 any representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20041001.  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. 6210.3.

.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

1.  “I J_ A_ B_ (Applicant) request permission from the Department of Affairs to upgrade my discharge to a General or RE-3 reentry code, so I can join the National Guard.
I enlisted into the USMC October 10/2000.  I only scored a 31 on my asvab and my recruiter said that I could either be 0311 or a cook, so I was a 0311, but I am also an only son, and I took on a lifestyle I wasn’t ready for, but know at 21 yrs old I deeply regret with my heart leaving the USMC, still till this day people say it was the best thing that happened to me, but Im older know, and ready to make a career out of the National Guard, but do to conditions beeing discharged under other than honorable Conditions, and I ask for the department of affairs support to help this young ex-marine, young man, find his way back and I deeply consider al of the Department of Veterans affairs time and help greatly appreciated.

Sincerely

J_ A_ B_ (Applicant)”

Documentation

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

Applicant’s DD Form 214

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   None
	Inactive: USMCR(J)		000613 - 001009	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  001010		Date of Discharge:  010620

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    00  08  11
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  33

Highest Rank:  Pvt			MOS:  9971

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Proficiency:  2.6 (2)			Conduct:  1.7 (3)

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  RSB

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  41

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority:  MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6210.3.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

010312:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86:
Specification: Failed to report to appointed place of duty on 1801, 010304 to 1900, 010308 (4 days).
Awarded forfeiture of $243.00 per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duties for 14 days.  Forfeiture suspended for 6 months.  Not appealed.

010312:	Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct.  [Unauthorized absence.]  Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.

010319:	Applicant to unauthorized absence 0701, 010319.

010419:	Applicant declared a deserter.

010426:	Applicant from unauthorized absence 1100, 010426 (37 days/surrendered).

010509:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86:
Specification: Failed to report to appointed place of duty on 0701, 010319 to 1100, 010426.
Violation of UCMJ, Article 134:
Specification: Break restriction on 0701, 010319.
Awarded forfeiture of $521.00 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duties for 45 days.  Not appealed.

010510:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.

010510:	Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult with 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.

010510:	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 your failure to obey rules and regulations.  Your intolerable actions over the past two months have resulted in two nonjudicial punishment and one 6105 counselings.  Through your actions, you have demonstrated that you no longer possess the potential for continued honorable service in the Marine Corps.  

010529:	Applicant granted voluntary leave awaiting administrative separation.

010601:	SJA review determined the case sufficient in law and fact.

010605:	GCMCA [Commanding General, Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton, CA] 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 20010620 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct (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).

Issue 1.  A characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions is warranted when the member's conduct constitutes a significant departure from that expected of a Marine.  The Applicant’s service was marred by award of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on two occasions.  The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflects his disobedience of the orders and directives which regulate good order and discipline in the naval service, and falls short of that required for an honorable or under honorable (general) characterization of service.  An upgrade is inappropriate.  Relief denied.

Concerning a change in reenlistment code, the NDRB has no authority to change reenlistment codes or make recommendations to permit reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Naval Service or any other branch of the Armed Forces.  Neither a less than fully honorable discharge nor an unfavorable “RE” code is, in itself, a bar to reenlistment.  A request for waiver is normally done only during the processing of a formal application for enlistment through a recruiter.  

The Applicant’s discharge characterization accurately reflects his service to his country.  Normally, to permit relief, an inequity or impropriety must have existed during the period of enlistment in question.  No such inequity or impropriety is evident during the Applicant’s enlistment.  Additionally, there is no law, or regulation, which provides that an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time, or good conduct in civilian life, subsequent to leaving the service.  Relief not warranted.

The Applicant is reminded that he remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received at the NDRB within 15 years from the date of his 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 31 Jan 97 until 31 Aug 01. 

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 for more than 30 days; and Article 134, break restriction.

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