Author: CAP
Last saved by: Department of the Navy
Company: NCPB

Docket No. MD03-00598

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

ex-Pvt, USMC
Docket No. MD03-00598

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20030221.  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 did not list any representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20030205.  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 6210.5.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

1.  “I enlisted on March 17, 2000, and graduated Basic Training June 9, 2000 as Platoon Honor man and meritorious PFC. Completed MCT on schedule and then reported to 29 Palms, CA for training in ground electronics.  I had originally enlisted for the infantry but changed it as a result of being platoon Honor men and being able to switch.  I went UA from 29 Palms and upon my return, done by my free will, was given NJP.  On my next drug screen, I was positive for THC.  That was my mistake, one I had never made before and have not made since.  My discharge was started because of a “borderline personality disorder” based on how I felt towards one or two NCO’s in charge of me.  I would have been given a General Under Honorable Conditions discharge had it not been for the unfortunate drug screen mistake, which I also served out a NJP for.  I completed my punishment as given to me by my CO.  I do not believe I should be punished further by an incorrect discharge.  Please see fit to upgrade my discharge status to Honorable.  I was a great Marine.  Average Marines do not become Honor man, but I did.  Somewhere along the way, I slipped up.  I now humbly request that you help me put this matter to rest, and hopefully in the future I can continue to be the Marine I always knew I could be.  Thank you for your time and consideration.  Semper Fi.  C_ C_ L_.”

Documentation

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

None

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   None
	Inactive: USMCR(J)		000315		COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  000316		Date of Discharge:  010209

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    00  10  24	Does not exclude lost time
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  19			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  73

Highest Rank:  PFC

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Proficiency:  4.2* (Unknown)			Conduct:  4.2* (Unknown)

*Does not include last marks (4.3/3.5) after NJP.

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  Certificate of Commendation

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  29

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority:  MARCORSEPMAN 6210.5.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

000222:	Applicant briefed upon and certified understanding of Marine Corps policy concerning illegal use of drugs.

000908:	Mental Health Evaluation: Diagnosed with adjustment disorder and borderline personality disorder.  Applicant is unsuitable for continued military service.

000912:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86:
Specification: Absent from appointed place of duty 0600, 000807 to 0207, 000906 (29 days/S).
Awarded forfeiture of $502.00 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duties for 45 days, reduction to Pvt.  Forfeiture of $502.00 per month for 1 month suspended for 1 month.  Not appealed.

000912:	Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct.  [Violation of Article 86 of the UCMJ.]  Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.

000919:	NAVDRUGLAB, San Diego, CA, reported Applicant’s urine sample, received 000912, tested positive for THC.

001003:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 112A:
Specification: Wrongful use, possession of a controlled substance, as identified by SDIEGO NAVDRUGLAB Msg R 191832Z Sep 00, to wit: THC.
Awarded forfeiture of $502.00 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duties for 45 days.  Not appealed.

001003:	Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct.  [Violation of Article 112A, UCMJ, my illegal drug involvement; specifically my usage of THC as identified by SDIEGO NAVDRUGLAB Msg R 191832Z Sep 00.]  Applicant advised that processing for administrative separation for misconduct due to drug use is mandatory.

001020:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse and by reason of convenience of the government due to personality disorder.

001020:	Applicant advised of his 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.

001020:	Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse and convenience of the government due to a personality disorder.  The factual basis for this recommendation was you tested positive for THC and was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder and personality disorder. 

001206:	Medical evaluation for substance abuse screener recommended Applicant for the Marine Drug Awareness Course.  

010118:	SJA review determined the case sufficient in law and fact.

010119:	GCMCA [Commanding General, Marine Air Ground Task Force Training Command, Twentynine Palms, CA] directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20010209 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to drug abuse (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).

Issue 1.  There is credible evidence in the record that the Applicant used illegal drugs.  The Applicant’s performance in recruit training does not mitigate his misconduct.  Drug abuse warranted processing for separation.  Separation under these conditions generally results in characterization of service under other than honorable conditions.  The evidence of record does not demonstrate that the Applicant was not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions.  Relief denied.

The Applicant’s discharge characterization accurately reflects his service to his country.  Normally, to permit relief, an error or inequity must have existed during the period of enlistment in question.  No such error or inequity 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 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

The remaining portion of this document is divided into 4 Parts: Part I - Applicant’s Issues and Documentation, Part II - Summary of Service, Part III – Rationale for Decision and Pertinent Regulation/Law, Part IV - Information for the Applicant.
INDEX: