Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 1999_Marine | MD99-00593
Original file (MD99-00593.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-PVT, USMC
Docket No. MD99-00593

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 990325, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. The applicant requested 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 991213. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, NDRB discerned no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the applicant’s service. 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.

The NDRB did note an administrative error on the original DD Form 214. Block 12a, Date Entered AD This Period should read: “95 11 28” vice “951027”, Block 12c, Net Active, Service, This Period should read: “02 06 28” vice “02 07 29”. The original DD Form 214 should be corrected or reissued as appropriate.




PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

 1. My discharge was inequitable because it was based on one incident. My command gave me no chance to prove myself right.
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: USMC              000000 - 000000  HON
         Inactive: USMCR(J)                950418 - 951127  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 951128               Date of Discharge: 980625

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 02 06 28
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 18                          Years Contracted: 4

Education Level: 11                        AFQT: 35

 Highest Rank: LCPL

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Proficiency: 4.2 (7)                       Conduct: 3.9 (6)

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: Rifle Expert Badge, NDSM, LOA (3), MM (2)

Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

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 :


950418:  Applicant briefed upon and certified understanding of Marine Corps policy concerning illegal use of drugs.
980407:  NAVDRUGLAB [Jacksonville, Fl], reported applicant’s urine sample, received 000000, tested positive for THC.

970408:  Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct. [Drinking under age and getting in vehicle with someone who had been drinking] Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.
980528:  Summary Court-Martial.
         Charge I: violation of the UCMJ, Article 112a.
         Specification 1: Wrongful use of cocaine
         Specification 2: Wrongful use of marijuana
         Finding: to Charge I and the specifications thereunder, guilty.
         Sentence: Forfeiture of $617.00, reduced to E-1, 30 days confinement.
         CA action 980603: Sentence approved and ordered executed.
         
980615:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse as evidenced by “the positive urinalysis messages R072345Z APR 98, in which you tested positive for marijuana”.
980615:  Applicant advised of his rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights except the desire to obtain copies of documents forwarded to CG supporting the discharge.

980615:  Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse. The factual basis for this recommendation was ”the respondent’s positive urinalysis R072345Z APR 98, in which he tested positive for marijuana”.

980623:  SJA review determined the case sufficient in law and fact.

980623:  GCMCA [CG, 2d Force Service Support Group] 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 980625 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to drug abuse (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).


In the applicant’s issue 1, the Board found this issue without merit. In the applicant’s issues concerning a single drug screen, the Board found his issue to be without merit. The applicant implies that a permissive doctrine exists whereby one in the military is allowed a “single misdeed”. The Board believes that the applicant is confusing this with the civilian world wherein some offenses are treated with leniency because they are a first time incident on an otherwise clear record. No such leniency exists in the military. The applicant is responsible for his actions and must accept the consequences of his misdeeds. Relief denied.

 The following is provided for the applicant’s edification. The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge (E). The applicant must be aware that 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 the civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Normally, to permit relief, an error or injustice must have been found to have existed during the period of enlistment in question. Outstanding post-service conduct, 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, may be considered by the NDRB. The applicant is reminded that he is eligible for a personal appearance hearing provided the application is received within 15 years from the date of discharge. Representation at personal appearance hearing is highly recommended.



Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A. Paragraph 6210, MISCONDUCT , of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16E), effective 18 Aug 95 to 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 [ e.g., 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 obtain a copy of DoD Directive 1332.28 by writing to:
                  DA Military Review Boards Agency
                  Management Information and Support Directorate
                  Armed Forces Reading Room
                  Washington, D.C. 20310-1809

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
                  Washington Navy Yard
                  720 Kennon Street SE Rm 309
                  Washington, D.C. 20374-5023     


Similar Decisions

  • USMC | DRB | 1999_Marine | MD99-01189

    Original file (MD99-01189.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD99-01189 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 990903, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. Age at Entry: 20 Years Contracted: 4 Education Level: 12 AFQT: 41 Highest Rank: PFC Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks): Proficiency: 4.3 (3) Conduct: 3.8 (3) Military Decorations: None Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: Rifle Sharpshooter Badge, LOA Days of Unauthorized Absence: None Character,...

  • USMC | DRB | 2000_Marine | MD00-00277

    Original file (MD00-00277.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD00-00277 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 991221, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. The Board will not grant relief on the basis of this issue. At this time, the applicant has not provided any documentation of good character and conduct.

  • USMC | DRB | 2001_Marine | MD01-01157

    Original file (MD01-01157.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Commanding General directed the applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse. 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 Board found no evidence that the applicant’s personality disorder was responsible for the applicant’s decision to use illegal drugs.

  • USMC | DRB | 1999_Marine | MD99-00473

    Original file (MD99-00473.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD99-00473 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 990217, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable and the reason for the discharge be changed to change RE Codes. Reenlistment policy of the Marine Corps is promulgated by the Commandant, United States Marine Corps, Code MMPE5, Washington, DC 20380-3001. A review of the applicant’s service record was conducted and the Board determined that the discharge awarded was...

  • USMC | DRB | 2002_Marine | MD02-01307

    Original file (MD02-01307.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT ex-Pvt, USMC Docket No. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: USMC 000000 - 000000 HON Inactive: USMCR(J) 991217 - 000807 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 000808...

  • USMC | DRB | 2000_Marine | MD00-00251

    Original file (MD00-00251.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION Character of discharge is inequitable and to severe in view of applicant's good military record, and fact that applicant had only one incident of drug use although tested many times. 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).In the applicant’s issue 1, the applicant implies that a permissive doctrine exists...

  • USMC | DRB | 2000_Marine | MD00-00067

    Original file (MD00-00067.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214 Copy of Certificate of Commendation PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: USMC None Inactive: USMCR(J) 940218 - 940822 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 940823 Date of Discharge: 961011 Length of Service (years, months, days):Active: 02 01 17 Inactive: None ...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004 Marine | MD04-00130

    Original file (MD04-00130.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD04-00130 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20031022. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 19960202 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to drug abuse (A).

  • USMC | DRB | 2001_Marine | MD01-00853

    Original file (MD01-00853.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation Only the applicant's service and medical records were reviewed, as the applicant did not provide additional documentation for the Board to consider. It is in the best interests of the Marine Corps to separate SNM ASAP.”920427: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with a General characterization of service by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse as evidenced by positive urinalysis for cocaine.920429: Applicant advised of his rights and having consulted...

  • USMC | DRB | 2002_Marine | MD02-00604

    Original file (MD02-00604.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board determined that partial relief is warranted after consideration of Applicant's character references from superior NCOs, the Commanding Officer's recommendation for retention, and proficiency and conduct markings. I have waited over two years to send this letter to the board so that I can have enough positive things to show on my resume to you.Attached are some statements from the platoon I was a part of during training stating on the procedure in which the urinalysis was run; in...