DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC
20370-5100
CRS
Docket No: 7511-02
14 November 2002
This is in reference to your application for correction of your
naval record pursuant to the provisions of Title 10, United
States Code, Section 1552.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 14 November 2002.
injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative
regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this
Board.
your application,
thereof,
and policies.
opinion furnished by Headquarters Marine Corps dated 26 September
2002, a copy of which is attached.
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of
together'with all material submitted in support
Your allegations of error and
your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations
In addition, the Board considered the advisory
In this connection, the Board substantially
After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire
record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was
insufficient to establish the existence of probable material
error or injustice.
concurred with the comments contained in the advisory opinion.
Accordingly, your application has been denied.
The names and
votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.
It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that
favorable action cannot be taken.
YOU are entitled to have the
Board reconsider its decision upon submission of new and material
evidence or other matter not previously considered by the Board.
In this regard, it is important to keep in mind that a
presumption of regularity attaches to all official records.
Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval
record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the
existence of probable material error or injustice.
Sincerely,
W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director
Enclosure
DEPAWMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
2 NAW ANNEX
WASHINGTON, DC 20380-1775
IN REPLY REFER TO
1070
JAM4
6 SEP 2002
2
MEMORANDUM FOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
RECORDS
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL
I
Sub]:
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS (BCNR) APPLICATION
IN THE CASE OF FORMER
that (1) Petitioner's
We are asked to provide an opinion on
Petitioner's request
1.
to be restored to duty at the grade of lance corporal (pay grade
Specifically, we
E-3), with no lost time in service or grade.
are asked to comment on allegations
administrative discharge board did not sufficiently deliberate
upon their decision against
(2) the separation authority did not
Petitioner's discharge,
properly consider the letter of deficiency, dated 31 May 2001,
submitted by Petitioner's counsel,
Petitioner's administrative separation board unfairly prejudiced
the board's recommendations:
restored to duty as an act
positive urinalysis is the "only blemish" in an "otherwise
exemplary record of service."
*of clemency in recognition that her
Petitioner also requests to be
recommending suspension of
and (3) improper testimony at
We recommend that Petitioner's request for relief be denied.
2.
Our analysis follows.
3.
Background
a.
In October 2000,
Petitioner tested positive on a
urinalysis for use of Amphetamine.
Headquarters Battalion, 1st Marine Division, Camp Pendleton,
California directed that Petitioner's case be heard before an
administrative separation board in accordance with paragraph
6210.5a of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual
which requires processing for administrative
(MARCORSEPMAN),
separation for all substantiated instances of drug abuse.
The Commanding Officer,
b.
On 25 April 2001,
Petitioner's administrative separation
Petitioner was represented by counsel and was
board convened.
afforded all applicable rights.
recommended that Petitioner be involuntarily discharged for drug
abuse and that her service be characterized as Under Other Than
Honorable Conditions.
the discharge.
The board did not recommend suspension of
The board unanimously
Subj:
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS (BCNR) APPLICATION
C .
On 31 May 2001,
counsel for Petitioner submitted a
, 1st Marine Division (MARDIV), Reinforced (Rein))
failed in their duty to
letter- of deficiency to the separation authority (the Commander
(Cmdr)
alleging that the board members
deliberate and make an independent recommendation regarding
whether the separation authority should suspend the recommended
discharge.
The letter noted the evidence of Petitioner's good
military character presented at the administrative separation
board and contained Petitioner's request that the separation
authority suspend the recommended discharge.
d.
In his letter of 6 June 2001, the Cmdr, 1st MARDIV
(Rein) directed Petitioner's discharge for misconduct due to
drug abuse and that her service be characterized as Under Other
Than Honorable Conditions.
deficiency as enclosure
reviewed it.
(21, and specifically indicated that he
The Cmdr listed the letter of
Analysis.
4.
Petitioner for misconduct due to drug abuse.
Petitioner's claims is addressed separately below.
No legal error occurred in the discharge of
Each of
a.
The board members did not deliberate upon suspension of
_ Petitioner complains that the board members did
the discharge.
not consider suspension of the recommended discharge, and argues
that this error warrants her restoration to duty.
is without merit.
This argument
(1) Service regulations regarding involuntary separation
of enlisted Marines do not require that the board members make a
recommendation with regard to suspension of a recommended
discharge; hence,
upon the issue.
board members shall recommend retention or separation, and if
separation is recommended,
However, paragraph
recommends separation,
there is no requirement that they deliberate
MARCORSEPMAN, directs that
Paragraph 6319.5,
6319.5b instructs that if the board
a characterization of service.
it may recommend suspension.
(2) By asking BCNR to find error in the board's
deliberations, Petitioner seeks to inject legal requirements
regarding jury deliberations in criminal cases into an
administrative context.
instructive.
Paragraph 6316.1, MARCORSEPMAN, is
"There is a sharp and distinct
It provides:
2
Subj:
BOARD
FOR CORR E CTION
RMER
0~ NAVAL
RECORDS
(BCNR) APPLICATIO
N
.
,
delineation between the administrative process which has as its
purpose the administrative elimination of unsuitable, unfit, or
unqualified Marines,
and the judicial process, the purpose of
which is to establish the guilt or innocence of a member accused
of a crime and to administer punishment when appropriate."
administrative board made all required findings in closed
Second-guessing its deliberative process, a thing
session.
normally not permitted even in criminal cases,
ignores the
administrative nature of the board and invites BCNR to travel
down a slippery slope toward invading the closed-session
discussions of members.
The
(3) The evidence indicates that the board did consider
The record of hearing
suspension of the recommended discharge.
indicates that the board recommended by a vote of 3 to 0 that
the discharge not be suspended.
Even Petitioner's counsel's
recollection of his conversation with the board members shows
that they felt that Petitioher "should be separated."
regarding a suspension of her discharge,
Major
12 June 2001 that the board members felt that Petitioner did not
"rate one."
the senior member,
mall (E-mail) of
indicated in his electronic
Also,
(4) In any event, the Cmdr, 1st MARDIV (Rein), directed
Petitioner's discharge after having considered Petitioner's
complaint about the lack of discussion regarding suspension of
the discharge.
of a discharge by the board is not binding upon the separation
auth0rity.l
Petitioner's complaint.
Thus, the Cmdr's action directing separation moots
a recommendation for suspension
Significantly,
b.
Failure to consider counsel's letter of
deficiencv.
Petitioner complains that the separation authority did not
properly consider the letter of deficiency, dated 31 May 2001,
submitted by Petitioner's counsel.
This complaint is without
merit.
(2), and
(Rein) listed the letter of deficiency as enclosure
specifically indicated that he reviewed it prior to making his
decision.
"boilerplate"
In his letter of 6 June 2001, the Cmdr, 1st MARDIV
Petitioner's description of this as mere
is nonsensical.
1
See , paragraph 6310, MARCORSEPMAN.
3
Subj:
BOARD FOR CORRECTION
ION
complai
In his testimony, Major
C .
Testimony of
Majo- Petitioner objects to the
a trial counsel.
Petitioner complains
cas'e was sent directly to an
testimony was improper and tainted the board.
without basis.
testimony of Major
that Major
This
explained why Petitioner's
administrative separation board without first being adjudicated
Based upon the reported concentration of
at a court-martial.
the metabolite in
milliliter), Major
Government could n
physiological effects of the drug.
because it could not prove Petitioner felt the effects of the
drug, the Government could not successfully prosecute Petitioner
Rather,
at a court-martial.
it was relevant to explain the Government's processing of
Petitioner's case and to explain why the allegation of drug use
had not been previously adjudicated in a judicial or nonjudicial
forum.
testimony during
er's urine (expressed in nanograms per
xpressed his opinion that the
Moreover, counsel for Petitioner did not object to
th:s
This testimony was not improper.
that Petitione
Major
er felt the
hen opined that
the hearing.
5.
Conclusion.
relief be denied
Accordingly,
we recommend that the requested
Branch, Judge Advocate Division
Military Law
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 03494-02
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with this Board questing, in effect, that the applicable naval record be corrected by setting aside his reduction from staff sergeant (pay grade E-6) to sergeant (pay grade E-S) effected on 21 February 2001, which was the result of competency review board proceedings. with the greatest dispatch consistent with prudence and professionalism, Marine and the Marine Corps." Following...
USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-01294
MD03-01294 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030723. Decision A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20040430. For the Marine Corp to do so in my case is unfair and unjust.
USMC | DRB | 2002_Marine | MD02-00463
MD02-00463 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020222, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable and the reason for the discharge be changed to completion of required service. This board recommended that the Respondent should be separated from the Marine Corps with an Other than Honorable Discharge by reason of misconduct (drug abuse). Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04133-01
Copies of RFC documents appearing in his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) are at Tab B. removal of the service record page 11 (“Administrative Remarks (1070)“) counseling entry dated 17 April 1996, a copy of which is at Tab C, as he says it resulted from the fitness report. He provides his rebuttal of 17 April 1996 to the page 11 entry, and he states that he does not know why it is not in his record. The Board for Correction of Naval Records disapprove request for removal of the...
NAVY | DRB | 2004 Marine | MD04-01295
The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. 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 Applicant’s claim that he was separated against his will and that he was taken to a special court-martial for the same offense that formed the basis for his...
NAVY | DRB | 2004 Marine | MD04-01297
The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. 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 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...
NAVY | DRB | 2004 Marine | MD04-01413
The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. st MARDIV (Rein)] directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse. 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:Secretary of the Navy Council of Review Boards
USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0601156
Complete Service Record: YES Complete Medical Record: YESComplete Discharge Package: YESRegarding propriety, the Board found the discharge: PROPER Regarding equity, the Board found the discharge: EQUITABLE By a vote of the Characterization shall UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall MISCONDUCT Applicant’s Issues, as summarized by the Board: 1. Elements of Discharge: [INVOLUNTARY] Date Notified: 20050307Basis for Discharge: DUE TO Least Favorable...
USMC | DRB | 1999_Marine | MD99-01223
MD99-01223 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 990920, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION 930422: Not recommended for promotion to CPL because of lack of professionalism, self-discipline, judgement.
USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-00569
The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. Not appealed.010117: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse as evidenced by methamphetamine use and misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.010118: Applicant advised of his rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B,...