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

ex-Pvt, USMC
 Docket No. MD04-00606

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20040225.  The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable.  The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review.  The Applicant listed the American Legion as the representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20041022.  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

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

1.  “MY DISCHARGE WAS INEQUITABLE BECAUSE IT WAS BASED ON ONE ISOLATED INCIDENT IN 33 MONTHS OF SERVICE WITH NO OTHER ADVERSE ACTION.”

Additional issues submitted by Applicant’s representative (American Legion):

2.  “Equity Issue:  Based on our review of evidentiary record and on behalf of this former member, we request that the Board consider provisions of SECNAVINST 5420.174C, enclosure (1), Chapter 9, as it pertains to post-service conduct, in assessing the merits of this application. 
_______________________________________________________________________

In accordance with 32 C.F.R., section 724.166 and SECNAVINST 5420.174C, enclosure (1), paragraph 1.16, The American Legion submits to the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB or Board) the above issue and following statement in supplement to this Applicant’s petition. 

Review of the service record reveals that this former member maintained PRO/CON markings of 3.6/2.6 and earned the RMB.  On 020829, he was awarded NJP for VUCMJ, Arts. 86, 90.  The basis for his discharge was a period of UA from 011108 to 030211. Following due process notifications, he was discharged Under Other Than Honorable Conditions due to misconduct as authorized by MARCORSEPMAN, Par. 6210.6.

Essentially, as noted on DD Form 293, this Applicant is requesting that his discharge be upgraded because his misconduct was isolated incidents in an otherwise creditable service period. He has submitted a copy of his police record attesting to his good post service conduct for consideration.

The American Legion’s express purpose in providing this statement and any other submittals or evidence filed is to assist this Applicant in the clarification and resolution of the impropriety or inequity raised.  To that end, we rest assured that the NDRB’s final decision will reflect sound equitable principles consistent in law, regulation, policy and discretion as promulgated by title 10 U.S.C., section 1553, and set forth in 32 C.F.R., part 724 and SECNAVINST 5420.174C, enclosure (1).

This case is now respectfully submitted for deliberation and disposition.”

Documentation

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

New Orleans Police criminal record history, dated February 17, 2004
Character reference from Youth Pastor of My Redeemer M.B.C, undated
Job reference, undated

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   None
	Inactive: USMCR(J)		990716 - 000611	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  000612		Date of Discharge:  030326

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    02  09  15	Does not exclude lost time
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  44

Highest Rank:  LCpl			MOS:  3531

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Proficiency:  3.6 (4)			Conduct:  2.6 (5)

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  RM

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  468

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:

010629:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86:
Specification: Unauthorized absence from 1000, 010521 to 1400, 010530 (9 days/surrendered).
Violation of UCMJ, Article 90: Disobey a direct order from 1st Lt on 1200, 010604, to wit: to turn his car stereo down to an acceptable level.
Awarded forfeiture of $584.00 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duties for 45 days, reduction to E-2.  Forfeiture suspended for 6 months.  Not appealed.

011108:	Applicant to unauthorized absence, 1300.

030211:	Applicant from unauthorized absence 1200 (459 days/apprehended).

030213:	Applicant’s statement.  [I, Theodore T. Scott (434 47 4424) went deserter, because I want out of the U.S.M.C.  It is not a place for me.  I’m also having some family problems back at home.]

030224:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

030224:	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.

030303:	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 Applicant’s unauthorized absence from 011108 to 030211, a violation of Article 86, Uniform Code of Military Justice.

030318:	SJA review determined the case sufficient in law and fact.

030321:	GCMCA [Commanding General, Marine Corps Base, Camp Lejeune, NC] 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 20030326 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense (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.  The Applicant states his discharge was “based on one isolated incident in 33 months of service with no other adverse action.”   Despite a servicemember’s prior record of service, certain serious offenses, even though isolated, warrant separation from the naval service in order to maintain proper order and discipline.  In the Applicant’s 33 months of service, he was in unauthorized absence for 459 days.  Further, prior to this period of absence, the Applicant was subject to nonjudicial punishment proceedings for an unauthorized absence of nine days and a violation of Article 90 of the UCMJ for disobeying a lawful order.  Regulations limit the Board’s review to a determination on the propriety and equity of the discharge.  In the Applicant’s case, the Board could discern no impropriety or inequity and therefore consider his discharge proper and equitable.  Relief denied.

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.  The NDRB is authorized to consider outstanding post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge, 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.  After a complete review of the entire record, including the evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board determined that his discharge was appropriate and that his evidence of post-service conduct was found not to mitigate the conduct for which he was discharged.  Relief denied.

Issue 2.  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/or the reason for discharge if such change is warranted.  There is no evidence of impropriety or inequity in the Applicant’s discharge.  The Applicant’s misconduct is clearly documented.  Therefore, relief is denied.

The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of 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.  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.

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