Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2000_Marine | MD00-00144
Original file (MD00-00144.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-Pvt, USMC
Docket No. MD00-00144

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 991105, 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 000720. 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-Drug abuse (administrative discharge board required but waived), authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6210.5.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

 1. I believe that my discharge was inequitable due to the following reasons. I served for a proud four years before an improper judgement call ended my military career. I achieved the rank of corporal within my first two years of enlistment due to my agressive can do attitude. I was the NCOIC for HMM-262 Hydraulics Divison and recieved several meritorious accomodations and letters from my unit. I was collateral duty inspector (a noteworthy position) on CH-46 Helicopters for both HMM-262 and HMM-165 inspecting maintenance performed and authorizing safe flight of the CH-46, and crew. I fired expert on rifle qualification, recieved a letter of appreciation from the Secretary of the Navy, also the recipient of the good conduct medal, and the Humanitarian Service Medal, also the National Defense Service Medal. I have also recieved several letters of appreciation, and been subject of meritorious mast. As an non-comissioned officer I was trusted with duties that generally pertained to staff non-comissioned officers. Upon discharge many respected ranking individuals from HMM-262 to include LT.COL. F_, Maj. O_, Staff Sgt. W_ and others submitted papers stating that they, even having knowledge of my discharge and why, would still serve aside myself in Garrison or combat, without question. I served the Marine Corps proudly for four years, I am only guilty of making an irrepairable, and improper judgement call.


 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)                880812 - 890801  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 890802               Date of Discharge: 930820

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 04 00 19
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 17                          Years Contracted: 6

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 74

 Highest Rank: Cpl

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Proficiency: 4.1                  Conduct: 4.1

Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: SSDR with 1 Star, NDSM, Letter of Appreciation (2), MM, HSM

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: 11

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS /MISCONDUCT-Drug abuse (Administrative discharge board required but waived), authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6210.5.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

880723:  Applicant briefed upon and certified understanding of Marine Corps policy concerning illegal use of drugs.
930408:  NAVDRUGLAB [Oakland, CA], reported applicant’s urine sample, received 930405, tested positive for THC.

 930415:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 112A:
 Specification: Wrongfully use THC (marijuana) on 25Mar93.
Awarded forfeiture of $517.00 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duties for 30 days, reduction to LCpl. Not appealed.
930422:  Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct. [Illegal drug involvement: specifically, usage of marijuana as identified through urinalysis testing, NAVDRUGLAB message #R081616Z Apr 93.] Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.
930504:  Diagnosis of substance abuse/dependency: Cannabis abuse. Recommend out-patient Level II treatment.

930524:  Applicant briefed on VA benefits, as they pertain to alcohol/drug treatment. Applicant neither desire nor request the VA's Drug and Alcohol Rehabilitation Program in conjunction with discharge.

 930616:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86:
 Specification: Unauthorized absence 0930, 25May93 to 1630, 4Jun93 (11 days/surrendered).
Awarded forfeiture of $100.00 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duties for 45 days, reduction to PFC. Not appealed.
930720:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92:
 Specification: Violated MCO P1020.34E by not maintaining proper Marine Corps grooming standards on 5Jul93.
Violation of UCMJ, Article 134:
Specification: Violated MCO P1020.34E by wearing three earrings in his left ear.
Awarded extra duties for 45 days, reduction to Pvt. Not appealed.
930721:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under Other Than Honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a Pattern of misconduct and Drug abuse.
930721:  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.

930721:  Commanding officer recommended discharge under Other Than Honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to Drug abuse. The factual basis for this recommendation was three nonjudicial punishments, one of which is for the wrongful use of (THC) marijuana.

930804:  Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct. [Illegal drug involvement.] Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.
930804:  SJA review determined the case sufficient in law and fact.

930806:  GCMCA [Commanding General, 1 st Marine Expeditionary Brigade] 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 930820 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 determined this issue is without merit. The applicant claims he made an irrepairable and improper judgment call but served four proud years in the Marine Corps. The Board noted the commendatory portions of the applicant’s short career but also noted his misconduct, highlighted by three non-judicial punishments. His misconduct included use of illegal drugs, unauthorized absence and poor grooming standards. The applicant was given a second chance after his first NJP, through counseling, but failed to adhere to the advice given. Additionally, the applicant provided no documentation to warrant clemency based on post-service accomplishments. The board finds that the discharged was proper and equitable. 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). However, 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, is considered. The applicant should provide evidence of continuing educational pursuits, a verifiable employment record, documentation of community service, certification of non-involvement with civil authorities and proof of his not using drugs in order for consideration for relief based on post-service conduct. At this time the applicant has not provided sufficient documentation of good character and conduct. Therefore no relief will be granted. He is encouraged to continue with his pursuits and is reminded that he is eligible for a personal appearance hearing provided the application is received within 15 years from the date of discharge. Relief denied.


Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A. Paragraph 6210, Misconduct, of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, ( MCO P1900.16D), effective 27 Jun 89 until 17 Aug 95.
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 112a, Wrongfully use THC].
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      


.

Similar Decisions

  • USMC | DRB | 2001_Marine | MD01-00836

    Original file (MD01-00836.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION [Failure to obey orders. 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).Issues 1, 2 and 7.

  • USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-00407

    Original file (MD03-00407.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. 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. [Assignment to the Weight Control Program (WCP) in accordance with MCO 6100.10, effective 930111.]

  • USMC | DRB | 2001_Marine | MD01-00805

    Original file (MD01-00805.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 applicant used illegal drugs. With respect to a discharge adjudged by a court-martial case, the action of the NDRB is restricted to upgrades based on clemency (C, Part IV).

  • USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0600062

    Original file (MD0600062.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions). Commanding Officer’s comments: “On 17 October 2001, Lance Corporal G_ (Applicant) as given an opportunity to serve in the United States Marine Corps under a Drug Use and Abuse waiver. When the service of a member of the U.S. Marine Corps has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service as honorable.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501520

    Original file (ND0501520.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION I recommend he be discharged from the naval service for misconduct due to drug abuse with the characterization of service as other than honorable.”930827: Applicant evaluated for fitness for duty due to alcohol on breath.

  • USMC | DRB | 2001_Marine | MD01-00885

    Original file (MD01-00885.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD01-00885 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010625, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION 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;...

  • USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-01331

    Original file (MD03-01331.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant’s DD Form 214 Letter of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00451

    Original file (ND02-00451.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00451 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020228, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Letter from Applicant (2pgs) PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: USN None Inactive: USNR (DEP) 900216 - 900312 COG Period...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-01014

    Original file (ND00-01014.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    930805: Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense. At this time, the applicant has not provided any documentation of good character and conduct. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00022

    Original file (ND02-00022.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00022 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010924, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. 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 states that the discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident in 41 months of service with no other adverse...