Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2000_Marine | MD00-01000
Original file (MD00-01000.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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


ex-PFC, USMC
Docket No. MD00-01000

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 000801, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable and the reason for the discharge be changed to Medical-ADHD-should not have been enlisted. The applicant requested a personal appearance hearing before the traveling panel closest to Lexington, KY. The applicant listed a civilian counsel as the representative on the DD Form 293. In the acknowledgement letter to the applicant, the applicant was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 010309. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, NDRB discerned no impropriety but did find inequity in the characterization of the applicant’s service. The Board’s vote was Three to Two (3-2) that the character of the discharge will change to: HONORABLE/SECRETARIAL AUTHORITY, SPD JFF1, authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6214.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION


Issues

1. Petitioner was not medically fit to be enlisted at the outset.

 2. Condition (ADHD) was so serious that results of its effect (basis for discharge) were normal and natural consequences of it.

3. Procedural errors in due process violations in not making Attorney of Record part of discharge proceedings in violation of Regulations and Fifth Amendment to Constitution.

 4. Type and characterization of discharge wrong and totally inappropriate for the conditions known by the Marine Corps, and exacerbated by exposure to asbestos. It was not noted in final medical examinations of either ADHD nor asbestos exposure.
Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
Copy of DD Form 214
Letter from attorney dated July 19, 2000
 List of supporting documents
 Military orders dated April 17, 1997 (3 copies)
 Request for administrative discharge dated July 14, 1997 (3 copies)
 CH.A.D.D. information (4 copies)
Doctors evaluations dated March 9, 1994 (4 copies)
 Letter from Assistant Professor of Psychiatry dated May 19, 1997 (4 copies)
 Two copies of receipts (unreadable) (total of 6)
 Fifty-three pages from applicant's service record
 Letter to Commanding General, First Marine Aircraft Wing, Okinawa, Japan dated June 23, 1997 from applicant's attorney (3 copies)
Letter to attorney from Deputy Staff Judge Advocate, 1 st Marine Aircraft Wing dated June 26, 1997 (2 copies)
Letter from Member of Congress dated August 14, 1997 (2 copies)
 Letter from doctor University of Kentucky, College of Medicine, undated (3 copies)
 Paper on Attention Deficits in Children and Adults (2 pages) (2 copies)
 Newspaper article, undated (2 copies)
 Excerpt re: Attention Deficit-Hyperactivity Disorder, undated (2 copies)
Letter from attorney to United States Marine Corps, Legal/Personnel Officer dated July 14, 1997 (3 copies)
 Memorandum in support of discharge upgrade from attorney's office
Attorney's affidavit dated June 19, 2000
Copy of applicant's identification card for Lexington Community College
Copy of applicant's twin brother's identification card for Lexington Community College
Letter from Member of Congress dated December 14, 1998
Character/job reference from a manage of Baskin-Robbins, 31 Flavors dated March 11, 2000
Character reference dated March 6, 2000
Character reference dated December 29, 1998
Character reference from Pastor, Emmanuel Missionary Baptist Church dated March 27, 2000
Copy of memorandum in support of separation in lieu of trial for applicant and his twin brother (2 copies)
Copy of one page from Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual in reference to new entrant drug and alcohol testing
Copy of Asbestos Bulk Sample Laboratory Analysis dated September 19, 1997
Letter to congressman from applicant and his twin brother dated October 15, 1998
Letter to congressman from Assistant Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Safety and Occupational Health Policy) dated March 6, 1998
Two pages from Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual in reference to separation in lieu of trial by court-martial
Letter from attorney dated November 10, 2000
Copy of page 38 from a book (header says Food and Drugs)
Letter from attorney to Brigadier General, USMC, Marine Corps Base, Quantico, VA dated August 22, 1997
Copy of chronology of events
Franklin County Public Schools confidential integrated assessment report dated October 12, 1993
Attorney's affidavit
Copy of applicant's criminal record check dated September 26, 2000

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: None
          Inactive: USMCR(J)                960419 - 960910  COG
Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 960911               Date of Discharge: 970909

 Length of Service (years, months, days):
         Active: 00 11 29
          Inactive: None
Age at Entry: 19                          Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 72
Highest Rank: PFC

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):
Proficiency: 4.6 (1)                       Conduct: 2.3 (2)

 Military Decorations: None
Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: None

Days of Unauthorized Absence: 68

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT-MARTIAL, authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6419.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

970505:  Applicant to unauthorized absence 0001, 5May97.
970712:  Applicant from unauthorized absence 1400, 12Jul97 (68 days/surrendered).
970829:  Applicant, having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Art 27b, requested discharge for the good of the service to escape trial by court- martial. In the request the applicant noted that his counsel had fully explained the elements of the offenses for which he was charged and that he understood the elements of the offenses. He further certified a complete understanding of the negative consequences of his actions and that characterization of service would be under other honorable conditions. The applicant admitted guilt to the following violations of the UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence from 0001, 5May97 until 1400, 12Jul97.
970905:  GCMCA [Commanding General, Marine Corps Base, Quantico, VA] determined that applicant had no potential for further service, that separation in lieu of trial by court-martial was in the best interest of the service, and directed discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of conduct triable by courts-martial.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 970909 under other than honorable conditions in lieu of trial by court-martial (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 but not equitable (D and E).
In considering the applicant’s first, second and fourth issues, the Board agrees that the applicant was not medically fit for enlistment and that the type and characterization of the discharge is wrong and inappropriate, but the mention of exposure to asbestos is not a decisional issue for the NDRB to consider. In arriving at its opinion, the Board thoroughly explored the extensive medical, educational and behavioral documentation submitted. It is clear from the record that the applicant should not have been enlisted, his diagnosis of ADD and treatment with various medications, including Ritalin, representing barriers to military service. It is the opinion of this Board that the applicant did not fully comprehend the responsibilities he was assuming at the time of his enlistment and should not have been enlisted in the United States Marine Corps. The Board finds award of a less than honorable discharge for misconduct subsequent to an enlistment that should not have been contracted is inappropriate. Accordingly, full relief is granted and by a vote of 3 to 2 the Board grants the request and changes the character of the applicant’s discharge to Honorable by reason of Secretarial (SECNAV) Authority, SPD JFF1.

The applicant’s third issue argues due process violations in not making attorney of record part of discharge proceedings. The Board disagrees. Mr. J_s’ several memoranda and affidavit were part of the discharge proceedings and advocated for a General (under honorable conditions) discharge. These documents were considered by the command and are a part of the applicant’s permanent service record. However, after considering Mr. J_s’ recommendations, the Commanding General determined the appropriate discharge was under other than honorable conditions. Paragraph 6419, MARCORSEPMAN clearly states in discussing Separation in Lieu of Trial by court-martial that, “Characterization of service normally shall be under other than honorable conditions…” In approving the applicant’s request for separation in lieu of trial by court-martial, the Commanding General voided the Special Court-Martial which had been convened in this case and relieved the applicant of the burden of a punitive discharge. Relief on this basis is denied.


Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)
A. Paragraph 6419, SEPARATION IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT-MARTIAL , of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16E), effective
18 Aug 95 until 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 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 | MD00-00999

    Original file (MD00-00999.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD00-00999 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 000801, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable and the reason for the discharge be changed to Medical-ADHD-should not have been enlisted. The applicant admitted guilt to the following violations of the UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence from 0001, 5May97 until 1400, 12Jul97.970905: GCMCA [Commanding General, Marine Corps Base, Quantico, VA] determined that...

  • USMC | DRB | 2002_Marine | MD02-00299

    Original file (MD02-00299.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD02-00299 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020117, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. The Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) also advised that the Board first conducts a documentary Review prior to any personal appearance hearing. 970819: Applicant, having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ, Article 27b, requested discharge for the good of the service to escape trial by court-martial.

  • USMC | DRB | 2000_Marine | MD00-00210

    Original file (MD00-00210.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The petitioner, (applicant), respectfully requests the Board to upgrade his Other than Honorable Discharge which he received upon separation from the Marine Corps on June II, 1996, (see enclosure 1), because at the time of the events which led to his request for an administrative separation in lieu of trial by court-martial he was suffering from a psychiatric illness which prevented him from understanding the wrongfulness of his conduct.Sometime during his introductory training, the...

  • USMC | DRB | 2000_Marine | MD00-00014

    Original file (MD00-00014.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD00-00014 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 990930, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. The applicant failed to respond by the deadline date to a letter requiring the applicant to notify the Naval Discharge Review Board of intention to be present for the requested personal appearance hearing. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances...

  • USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-00203

    Original file (MD03-00203.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD03-00203 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 20021113, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. Even though he was absent without leave he did serve his country honorably while he was in the Marine Corps. Issue 2: In a statement (Request for Separation in lieu of Trial by Court-Martial) written in his own hand and signed on 29 Aug 91, the Applicant asked the Commanding General, I...

  • USMC | DRB | 2001_Marine | MD01-00200

    Original file (MD01-00200.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD01-00200 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 001205, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION Relief is not warranted.The Board found the applicant’s “Letter of Request for Reduction in Rank to E-3” a non decisional issue.

  • USMC | DRB | 2002_Marine | MD02-00218

    Original file (MD02-00218.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD02-00218 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020108, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. 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 112a, wrongful use of a...

  • USMC | DRB | 2000_Marine | MD00-00936

    Original file (MD00-00936.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 that although the applicant may have received letters of recommendation, the applicant’s misconduct outweighed these good aspects of service. The Board will not grant relief on the basis of this issue.In response to the applicant’s issues 5 and 6, the Board found that the...

  • USMC | DRB | 2001_Marine | MD01-00093

    Original file (MD01-00093.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD01-00093 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 001023, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to Honorable or General/under Honorable conditions. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 851004 under conditions Other Than Honorable in lieu of trial by court-martial (A). PART IV - INFORMATION FOR THE APPLICANT If you believe that the decision in your case is...

  • USMC | DRB | 1999_Marine | MD99-01057

    Original file (MD99-01057.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD99-01057 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 990802, 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:Statement in support of claim signed May 1999 Copy of marks Copy of report of medical board dated May 12, 1997 Copy of preliminary findings of the Physical...