ex-, USMC

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received:  20140603
Characterization of Service Received:   
Narrative Reason for Discharge:   
Authority for Discharge:   MARCORSEPMAN 

Applicant’s Request:	Characterization change to: 
	Narrative Reason change to: ALCOHOL REHABILITATION FAILURE

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive:	USMCR (DEP)	20080424 - 20080518  	Active:	

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment:  20080519	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Months
Date of Discharge:  20120110	Highest Rank:  
Length of Service:    Year(s)    Month(s)  22  Day(s)
Education Level:  	AFQT:  71
MOS:  5974
Proficiency/Conduct Marks (# of occasions):   () /  ()	Fitness Reports:  

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	Rifle  (3) KDSM(2)     CoC LoA

Periods of UA/CONF:  

NJP:  

- 20101122:	Article  (Failure to obey order or regulation) 
	Awarded:   Mandatory Substance Abuse Counseling  Suspended:  

- 20110324:	Article  (Failure to obey order or regulation) 
	Awarded:    Mandatory Substance Abuse Counseling  Suspended:  

- 20111104:	Article  (Failure to obey order or regulation) 
	Awarded:    Suspended:  

SCM:  

SPCM:  

CC:  

Retention Warning Counseling:  

- 20091203:	For violations of Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.  Specifically, I failed to obey Marine Corps Bases Japan Order 1050.2M Leave and Liberty Campaign when I failed to signed out with a liberty buddy and return prior to the expiration of my liberty period on 21 November 2009.  Even after being counseled that week by the Joint Reception Center, my section, and the Sergeant Major I decided to knowingly and willfully break the curfew regulations.

- 20100611:	For the following deficiencies:  Article 92 of the UCMJ.  Specifically, violating Group Order 5370.1, Fraternization and Group Order 1050.2b, Liberty Buddy Order.  You encouraged an ongoing friendship between yourself and a Lance Corporal from your section.  Your personal relationship with the Lance Corporal is not within the standards of conduct and professionalism for a NCO and displays a lack of regard to orders and regulations.  On 1 May 2010 you took the same Lance Corporal with you to a local bar, you disobeyed the Liberty Buddy Order by separating and returning to MCAS Futenma alone without notifying the duty officer of your separation..

- 20101122:	For the following deficiencies:  Article 92:  Failure to obey order or regulation.  Specifically in that you, on or about, 13 November 2010, violated Group Order 1050.3 CH1-3, by not having a liberty buddy, liberty card and not being physically present at home camp by 2400.

- 20110324:	For the following deficiencies:  Article 92:  Failure to obey order or regulation.  Specifically in that you, on or about, 5 March 2011, violated United States Forces Korea (USFK) Command Policy Letter #45 dated 25 august 2008, by consuming alcohol during the exercise pause for Key Resolve 11.

- 20111109:	For the following deficiencies:  Article 92-Failure to obey order or regulation.  Specification:  in that you, on or about, 0415, on 30 October 2011, violated GruO 11000.5C, by having a member of the opposite sex in your assigned barracks room during non-visiting hours with the door locked and in that you, on 29 October 2011, violated MCO 5300.17 by failing to adhere to aftercare recommendations from the Substance Abuse Counseling Center.

Types of Documents Submitted/reviewed

Related to Military Service:
	DD 214:		Service/Medical Record:		Other Records:	

Related to Post-Service Period:
	Employment:		Finances:		Education/Training:	
	Health/Medical Records:		Rehabilitation/Treatment:		Criminal Records:	
	Personal Documentation:		Community Service:		References:	
	Department of VA letter:		Other Documentation:	
		Additional Statements:
	From Applicant:		From/To Representation:		From/To Congress member:	

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A.  Paragraph 6210, MISCONDUCT, of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16F), effective 1 September 2001 until Present. 

B.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part II, Para 211, Regularity of Government Affairs, Part V, Para 502, Propriety and Para 503, Equity.

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

Applicant’s Issues

1.	The Applicant contends his discharge characterization is inequitable because he was six months from honorably completing his enlistment.
2.	The Applicant contends he was addicted to alcohol and was not provided adequate treatment resulting in a post-service driving while intoxicated charge within two weeks of his discharge.
3.	The Applicant contends his separation characterization determination did not appropriately weigh his notification as an alcohol rehabilitation failure as the primary basis rather than for a pattern of misconduct.

Decision

Date:  20141009		Location: Washington D.C.	 Representation: 

By a vote of  the Characterization shall  .
By a vote of  the Narrative Reason shall  .

Discussion

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 the reason for discharge if such change is warranted.  In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the Applicant.  The Board did complete a thorough review of the circumstances that led to  discharge and the discharge process to ensure  discharge met the pertinent standards of equity and propriety.  The Applicant’s record of service included  6105 counseling warnings and   for  of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ):  Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation, three specifications).  Based on the offense(s) committed by the Applicant,  command administratively processed  for separation.  When notified of administrative separation processing using the  procedure, the Applicant exercised his right to consult with a qualified counsel and   rights to submit a written statement and request an administrative board.

:  (Decisional) ()  .  The Applicant contends his discharge characterization is inequitable because he was six months from honorably completing his enlistment.  The Applicant was administratively separated and not separated upon expiration of enlistment or fulfillment of service obligation.  The characterization of service is determined by the quality of the member’s total performance of duty and conduct during the current enlistment, including the reason for separation.  Other considerations shall be given to the member’s length of service, grade, aptitude, and physical and mental condition.  Based on the Applicant’s record of service, the NDRB determined the Applicant engaged in conduct involving one or more acts or omissions that constituted a significant departure from the conduct expected of members of the Naval Service, and the awarded characterization of service was warranted.  Relief denied.

:  (Decisional) ()  .  The Applicant contends he was addicted to alcohol and was not provided adequate treatment resulting in a post-service driving while intoxicated charge within two weeks of his discharge.  The Applicant was directed to attend alcohol rehabilitation treatment by his commanding officer twice during his enlistment.  Both command directed rehabilitation periods were directed after the Applicant was found guilty of UCMJ violations at NJP and concluded with aftercare follow-up recommendations that the Applicant did not follow.  Regulations require members who have an ongoing history of alcohol abuse to be medically screened for an alcohol problem.  If diagnosed as dependent on alcohol by competent medical authority, which does not include the commanding officer, appropriate treatment must be offered prior to separation.  The purpose of this treatment is not to rehabilitate a service member for further service but rather to provide treatment before separation.  The NDRB presumes regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the Applicant.  Other than the Applicant’s statement indicating he did not receive adequate alcohol rehabilitation treatment, he provided no evidence reflecting his treatment was inadequate.  To the contrary, the evidence submitted by the Applicant demonstrates that he was provided rehabilitative treatment on two occasions and that he failed to follow aftercare recommendations both times.  The Applicant’s statement alone is not enough to refute the presumption of regularity.  Therefore, the Board concluded the command acted appropriately, equitably, and properly in processing the Applicant for separation.  Relief denied. 

:  (Decisional) ()  .  The Applicant contends his separation characterization determination did not appropriately weigh his notification as an alcohol rehabilitation failure as the primary basis rather than for a pattern of misconduct.  Alcohol consumption is never a rationale or an acceptable excuse for inappropriate conduct, misconduct, or poor judgment.  The record of evidence clearly shows the Applicant had five 6105 counseling warnings and   during his enlistment.  A minimum of TWO incidents occurring within one enlistment is required for a pattern of misconduct discharge.  The infractions may be minor or more serious.  There must be discreditable involvement with civil or military authorities or conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline.  The misconduct need not have been the subject of NJP or military or civilian conviction.  The incidents of misconduct do not have to be of the same nature.  The NDRB determined the Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflected a significant departure from the conduct expected of a servicemember and that a change of his narrative reason for separation was not warranted.  Relief denied.

Summary:  After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service,  record entries, and discharge process, the Board found   Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall   and the narrative reason for separation shall remain .

The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing for a period of fifteen years from the date of  discharge.  The Applicant is directed to the Addendum for additional information.

ADDENDUM:  Information for the Applicant

Complaint Procedures:  If you believe 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 Instruction 1332.28, you may submit a complaint in accordance with Enclosure (5) of that Instruction to the Joint Service Review Activity, OUSD (P&R) PI-LP, The Pentagon, Washington, DC  20301-4000.  You should read Enclosure (5) of the Instruction 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 Instruction 1332.28 and other Decisional Documents by going online at “http://Boards.law.af.mil.”

Additional Reviews:  After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application is received at the NDRB within 15 years of the Applicant’s date of discharge.  The Applicant can provide documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments or any additional evidence related to this discharge.  Representation at a personal appearance hearing is recommended but not required.  There are veterans organizations such as the American Legion and the Disabled American Veterans that are willing to provide guidance to former service members in their efforts to obtain a discharge upgrade.  If a former member has been discharged for more than 15 years, has already been granted a personal appearance hearing or has otherwise exhausted their opportunities before the NDRB, the Applicant may petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR), 701 South Courthouse Road, Suite 1001, Arlington, VA 22204-2490 for further review.

Service Benefits:  The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determines eligibility for post-service benefits, not the NDRB.  There is no requirement or law that grants recharacterization solely on the issue of obtaining veterans benefits and this issue does not serve to provide a foundation upon which the Board can grant relief.

Employment/Educational Opportunities:  The NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment or educational opportunities.  Regulations limit the NDRB’s review to a determination of the propriety and equity of the discharge.

Reenlistment/RE-code:  Since the NDRB has no jurisdiction over reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Navy, Marine Corps, or any other of the Armed Forces, the NDRB is not authorized to change a reenlistment code.  Only the BCNR can make changes to reenlistment codes.  Additionally, the NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities.  An unfavorable “RE” code is, in itself, not a bar to reenlistment.  A request for a waiver can be submitted during the processing of a formal application for reenlistment through a recruiter.

Medical Conditions and Misconduct:  DoD disability regulations do not preclude a disciplinary separation.  Appropriate regulations stipulate that separations for misconduct take precedence over potential separations for other reasons.  Whenever a member is being processed through the Physical Evaluation Board, and is processed subsequently for an administrative involuntary separation or is referred to a court martial for misconduct, the disability evaluation is suspended pending the outcome of the non-disability proceedings.  If the action includes either a punitive or administrative discharge for misconduct or for any basis wherein an Other Than Honorable discharge is authorized, the medical board report is filed in the member’s terminated health record.  Additionally, the NDRB does not have the authority to change a narrative reason for separation to one indicating a medical disability or other medical related reasons.  Only the BCNR can grant this type of narrative reason change.

Automatic Upgrades - 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 subsequent to leaving naval service.

Post-Service Conduct:  The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge.  Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the Applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review, is considered during Board reviews.  Documentation to support a post-service conduct upgrade includes, but is not limited to: a verifiable continuous employment record; marriage and children’s birth certificates (if applicable); character witness statements; documentation of community or church service; certification of non-involvement with civil authorities; evidence of financial stability or letters of good standing from banks, credit card companies, or other financial institutions; attendance at or completion of higher education (official transcripts); and documentation of a drug-free lifestyle.   The Applicant is advised that completion of these items alone does not guarantee the upgrade of an unfavorable discharge, as each discharge is reviewed by the Board on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate  in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member’s overall character.

Issues Concerning Bad-Conduct Discharges (BCD): Because relevant and material facts stated in a court-martial specification are presumed by the NDRB to be established facts, issues relating to the Applicant’s innocence of charges for which he was found guilty cannot form a basis for relief.  With respect to a discharge adjudged by a special court-martial, the action of the NDRB is restricted to upgrades based on clemency.  Clemency is an act of leniency that reduces the severity of the punishment imposed.  The NDRB does not have the jurisdictional authority to review a discharge or dismissal resulting from a general court-martial.

Board Membership:  The names and votes of the members of the NDRB Board are recorded on the original of this document and may be obtained from the service records by writing to:

Secretary of the Navy Council of Review Boards
Attn:  Naval Discharge Review Board
720 Kennon Street SE Rm 309
Washington Navy Yard DC  20374-5023