Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2000_Marine | MD00-00807
Original file (MD00-00807.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-PFC, USMC
Docket No. MD00-00807

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 000609, 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 010116. 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/INVOL DIS (BOARD WAIVED (MISCONDUCT) DRUG ABUSE, authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6210.5.



PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

1. I do not to offer an excuse, rather an explanation of my actions. Although my military training prepared me physically for a combat situation it could not prepare me mentally. After serving as a Machine gun team leader with 3 rd BHN 6 th I do not dispute the reason for my discharge. I am requesting an upgrade of my discharge because the person I was in 1995 is not the person I am today. Since being discharged I’ve become a father, a husband and have held the same full time job for 5 yrs. I have a new set of goals in my life, to include a better quality of life for my family and me. Which with this upgrade I hope to achieve. The reason I was discharged was do to an incident involving drugs. I would like to use this time Marines during operations in Mogadishu, Somalia; I had a tough time coping with what I had been through. While trying to sort out the emotions I was feeling, I experimented with drugs one time thinking it would help me clear my head. Well, I was wrong. Not only did it not help me, it eventually took from me the only thing that mattered to me at the time; my military career. While serving with 3/6 I completed 3 M.C.I., received a Meritorious Mast, and was awarded 3 metals and 1 ribbon. I also became a vet twice, for operations in Mogadishu, Somalia and Operations in Port An Prince Haiti. Since I've been out I've held a job for 5 yrs, which has a strict no drug policy itself. I got married in 1997 as well as became a father and am currently expecting my second child this summer. I hope I could shed a little light on my situation and hopefully I have provided you with enough information to make your decision. Again this was an isolated incident and was no more than a case of poor judgment on my part. However I don't feel as though I should have to be budged, "other than honorable" for making a mistake. I always have been and always will be proud to have put my life on the line for the freedoms of all Americans. In closing, no matter you decision I thank you for you time to review my case.


Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
Copy of DD Form 214
Copy of meritorious mast
Certificate of Marriage
Certificate of Birth
Copy of certificate for personal finance course dated July 1, 1994
Copy of certificate for fundamentals of Marine Corps leadership course dated October 25, 1993
Copy of certificate for the Marine rifleman, first aid, field sanitation and NBC course dated April 19, 1994
Statement from applicant
Job reference dated July 11, 2000
Copy of Laborer's International Union of North America for 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000
Copy of applicant's service record (microfiche)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: None
         Inactive: USMCR(J)                921028            COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 921029               Date of Discharge: 950214

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 02 03 16
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 19                          Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 73

 Highest Rank: LCpl

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Proficiency: 4.4 (6)                       Conduct: 3.9 (6)

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM, AFEM, SSDR, UNM

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: 13

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE/INVOL DIS (BOARD WAIVED) (MISCONDUCT) DRUG ABUSE, authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6210.5.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

921013:  Applicant briefed upon and certified understanding of Marine Corps policy concerning illegal use of drugs.
930607:  Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct. [Excessive use of or alcohol related incidents.] Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.
940111:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86
 Specification: Unauthorized absence from 0730, 20Dec93 to 2400, 2Jan94 (13 days).
Awarded forfeiture of $221.00 per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duties for 14 days. Forfeiture of $175.00 for 1 month and restriction and extra duty for 7 days suspended for 3 months. Not appealed.
941005:  NAVDRUGLAB Jacksonville, FL, reported applicant’s urine sample, received 940926, tested positive for cocaine.

 941014:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 112A:
 Specification: Wrongfully used cocaine on on or about 940922.
Awarded forfeiture of $466.00 per month for 2 months, restriction for 60 days, reduction to PFC. Not appealed.
941018:  Consolidated Drug and Alcohol Center Evaluation for drug and alcohol abuse found the applicant to be a drug and alcohol abuser, not dependent.

950103:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse. The factual basis for this recommendation was your nonjudicial punishment of 14 October 1994 for wrongful use of cocaine.

950103:  Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights.

950103:  Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse. The factual basis for this recommendation was nonjudicial punishment of 14 October 1994 for wrongful use of cocaine.

950202:  SJA review determined the case sufficient in law and fact.

950202:  GCMCA [Commander, 2d Marine Division, MarForLant] 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 950214 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to drug abuse (A). The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (B). 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).

The applicant requests his discharge be upgrade because of his post-service conduct.
The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge (B, Part IV). 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 provided one statement of service from his employer as documentation of his post-service. The applicant's efforts need to be more encompassing than those provided. The applicant should have produced 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 clemency 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. 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.

C. 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.

D. 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

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004 Marine | MD04-00865

    Original file (MD04-00865.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Additional issues submitted by Applicant’s representative (New Jersey Department of Military & Veterans Affairs): 950124: GCMCA, Commander, 2d Marine Division, directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse. 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.

  • USMC | DRB | 2002_Marine | MD02-00607

    Original file (MD02-00607.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD02-00607 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020329, 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:Copy of DD Form 214 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: USMC None Inactive: USMCR(J) 910815 - 920210 COG Period of Service...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00579

    Original file (ND03-00579.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Decision A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20040128. 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:

  • USMC | DRB | 2002_Marine | MD02-00244

    Original file (MD02-00244.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The record reflects the FSM served on active duty from July 28, 1992 to March 13, 1995 at which time he received the current OTH discharge due to a pattern of misconduct, due to drug abuse. The Board found nothing in the applicant’s record of service that mitigates his drug use sufficient to warrant an upgrade to the characterization of service. You should read Enclosure (5) of the Directive before submitting such a complaint.

  • USMC | DRB | 2000_Marine | MD00-00995

    Original file (MD00-00995.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD00-00995 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 000811, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable and the reason for the discharge be changed to Convenience of the Government. The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2001_Marine | MD01-00986

    Original file (MD01-00986.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION 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. Normally, to permit relief, an error or injustice must have existed during the period of enlistment in question.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004 Marine | MD04-00634

    Original file (MD04-00634.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD04-00634 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20040303. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. Even though I received my punishment during my NJP.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00336

    Original file (ND01-00336.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Decision A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 010710. 830729: Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (You have been identified as a drug abuser through urinalysis screening/awarded NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for a drug related offense), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning. Unfortunately the applicant had only 15 years from the date of his discharge to request...

  • USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-01311

    Original file (MD03-01311.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD03-01311 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030801. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable and the reason for the discharge be changed. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant’s DD Form 214 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of...

  • USMC | DRB | 1999_Marine | MD99-01228

    Original file (MD99-01228.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    940811: Applicant advised of his rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights.940811: Commanding officer recommended 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 issue 1, the Board determined...