Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2000_Marine | MD00-00276
Original file (MD00-00276.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-Pvt, USMC
Docket No. MD00-00276

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 991221, 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 designate a representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 000824. 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 25, Separation Authority, should read: “6210.5” vice “6210”. The original DD Form 214 should be corrected or reissued as appropriate.






PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues (verbatim)

 1. I feel that the discharge that I received was unfair. I do not feel that I am above the Uniformed Code of Military Justice, but the Marine Corps is based on honor and integrity, which I should through the investigation in to apparent drug use aboard MCLB Barstow. I was honest and withheld nothing during my interviews with CIO nor during my court martial. Many others lied and received nothing. The whole case was a he said, she said case, but I remained honest. I served the Marine Corps for 3 years and 9 months and had planed to re-enlist until this discharge was given to me. I always wanted to be a Marine and continue a career in law enforcement. In the state of Missouri, I can not enroll in any police academies. Other ways, this is my last hope. I only ask that this application for discharge upgrade be looked at as someone who made a mistake, paid the price, but who wants a second chance in life. If I would of lied or been at a different base with a different MOS, I would still be in the Corps. Attached is a letter from my commanding officer in Barstow to a police department I applied to. Thanks for your time.

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
Letter of Recommendation from lstLt P.P. S_, USMC, dtd Dec 15, 1997
Copy of DD Form 214

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: None
         Inactive: USMCR(J)                921221 - 930119  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 930120               Date of Discharge: 961011

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 03 08 22
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 18                          Years Contracted: 4

Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 68

 Highest Rank: LCpl

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Proficiency: 4.37 (8)             Conduct: 4.06 (8)

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM, GCM, LOA(3), MM

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 :

[ADMIN DISCHARGE PACKAGE NOT CONTAINED IN SERVICE RECORD AND APPLICANT DID NOT PROVIDE.]
921218:  Applicant briefed upon and certified understanding of Marine Corps policy concerning illegal use of drugs.
941011:  Counseled regarding deficiencies (underage drinking). Necessary corrective actions explained. Sources of assistance identified. Disciplinary and administrative discharge warnings issued.

950520:  Eligible but not recommended for promotion to Corporal for the June 1995 Prom Prd because of lack of leadership.

950915:  Eligible but not recommended for promotion to Corporal for the Sep 1995 Prom Prd because of use of Govt phones for unauthorized phone calls.

960402:  Counseled regarding deficiencies (using your govt issued card for personal use on Oct 1995 and writing a personal check without sufficient funds on Jan 1996). Necessary corrective actions explained. Sources of assistance identified. Disciplinary and administrative discharge warnings issued.

960819:  Eligible but not recommended for promotion to Corporal for the Sep 1996 Prom Prd because of pending disciplinary action.

 960912:  Special Court Martial
                  Charge I: violation of UCMJ, Article 91: disrespect in deportment
                  Charge II: violation of UCMJ, Article 112A: wrongfully use marijuana
 Charge III: violation of UCMJ, Article 128: unlawful striking of LCpl C_.
Findings: to Charge I - guilty,
to Charge II - guilty
to Charge III - not guilty
Sentence: Forfeiture of $200.00 per month for 1 month, confinement to hard labor for 1 months and reduction to pay grade E-1.
CA 961004: Sentence approved and ordered executed.
960913:  To confinement.

961006:  Released from confinement.

 961008:  Counseled concerning illegal drug involvement; specifically usage of marijuana and advised that processing for administrative separation for misconduct mandatory per MCO P1900.16.
961011:  Applicant discharged Under Other Than Honorable Conditions by reason of misconduct - drug abuse.


PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 961011 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).

The applicant states in issue 1 that “the discharge I received was unfair” because he was “honest and withheld nothing during” the interviews. 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 was found guilty at a court martial of disrespect and use of marijuana. During his enlistment, he also received 2 counselings and was not recommended for promotion on 3 separate occasions. Although it is admirable that the applicant told the truth and was honest during the investigation, that is what is expected of a Marine, but that does not change the fact that the applicant is responsible for his actions and must accept the consequences of his misdeeds. The Board will not grant relief on the basis of this issue.

There is no law or regulation that provides for the upgrade of an unfavorable discharge based solely on the passage of time, or good conduct in the civilian life subsequent to leaving the Service. However, the Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge (D). Those factors include, but are not limited to, the following: evidence of continuing educational pursuits (transcripts, diplomas, degrees, vocational-technical certificates), a verifiable employment record (Letter of Recommendation from boss), documentation of community service (letter from the activity/community group), certification of non-involvement with civil authorities (police records check) and proof of his not using drugs (detoxification certificate, AA meeting attendance or letter documenting participation in the program) in order for consideration for clemency based on post-service conduct. At this time, the applicant has not provided any documentation of good character and conduct. Therefore no relief will be granted. The applicant 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.

 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 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 | 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 ...

  • USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-01147

    Original file (MD03-01147.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. 020617: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.020617: Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse. Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

  • USMC | DRB | 2001_Marine | MD01-00691

    Original file (MD01-00691.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD01-00691 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010417, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Employment/Character Reference Letter Character Reference Letters (2) PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of...

  • USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-01059

    Original file (MD03-01059.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD03-01059 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030530. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. The Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment or educational opportunities as requested in the issue.

  • 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 | 2000_Marine | MD00-00697

    Original file (MD00-00697.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    960307: GCMCA [Commanding General, Marine Corps Base Hawaii] 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 (C and D).In the applicant’s issues 1 through 5, and 9, the Board found that the applicant’s misconduct due to drug abuse outweighed the positive...

  • USMC | DRB | 2001_Marine | MD01-00671

    Original file (MD01-00671.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I received a general discharge under other than honorable conditions for testing positive for drugs. I am asking the board to consider my service record prior to my discharge and grant me an upgrade to my discharge. st Marine Division] directed the applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.

  • USMC | DRB | 1999_Marine | MD99-00593

    Original file (MD99-00593.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 CA action 980603: Sentence approved...

  • USMC | DRB | 2001_Marine | MD01-00669

    Original file (MD01-00669.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In the acknowledgement letter to the applicant, he was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) also advised that the board first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. I go to his office with gunny and he starts reading me my rights and telling me that I popped on the urine test for cocaine. However, the NDRB is authorized to consider outstanding post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge, to the extent that such matters...

  • USMC | DRB | 1999_Marine | MD99-00472

    Original file (MD99-00472.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In the acknowledgement letter to the applicant, he was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. 950921: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92:Specification: Violated Base Order 5560.2J on 18Aug95, to wit: driving on base and state revocation. Normally, to permit relief, an error or injustice must have been found to have existed during the period of enlistment in question.