Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2001_Marine | MD01-00035
Original file (MD01-00035.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-Pvt, USMC
Docket No. MD01-00035

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 001004, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. The applicant requested a personal appearance hearing discharge review in the Washington National Capital Region. The applicant designated the American Legion as his representative on the DD Form 293. 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.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 010822. 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: BAD CONDUCT DISCHARGE/ As a result of a courts-martial (SPCM) – Other, authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 1105.


 PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

 1. I was promised rehabilitation and never received it, therefore, my problem continued. I later test positive again and again was not given treatment. There was no Drug & Alcohol personnel on base.

2. (Equity Issue) Pursuant to 10 USC 874(b) (UCMJ, Article 74) and in accordance with SECNAVINST 5420.174C, enclosure (1), paragraphs 2.24 and 9.3, this former member requests the Board's clemency relief with up-grade to his characterization of service to under honorable conditions on the basis of his post-service conduct.

 Documentation
Temporary Service and Dental Records were reviewed, as the Board was unable to obtain a copy of the Medical Record from the record center and the applicant. Applicant did not provide any post-service documentation for the Board to consider, but did provide the following:
Certification of Military Service (Nov 9, 1982 until Mar 7, 1988)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: USMC              821108 - 880307  HON
         Inactive: USMCR(J)                821028 - 821107  COG
 USMCR    780302 - 821027  COG (did serve on acdutra attend drills, acdu during this contract.)
Period of Service Under Review :
APPLICANT'S temporary service record incomplete.
Date of Enlistment: 880308               Date of Discharge: 920513 (Applicant states discharge date as 91-05-21 but he was placed on appellate leave that date).

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 04 02 06 (Doesn't exclude appellate leave period).
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 27                          Years Contracted: 6

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: Not available

 Highest Rank: Sgt

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Proficiency: 4.6 (1)                       Conduct: 2.9 (1)

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: COC, MM, LOA(2), LOR

Days of Unauthorized Absence: NONE

Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance) (DD214 NOT IN SERVICE RECORD):

BAD CONDUCT DISCHARGE/As a result of a courts-martial (SPCM) - Other, authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 1105.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

900429:  Summary Court-Martial.
         Charge I: violation of the UCMJ, Article 112a.
         Specification: on or before 27 Nov 89 wrongfully use a controlled substance, to wit: Cocaine.
         Charge II: violation of the UCMJ, Article 134.
         Specification: did, at CamSmh, on or about 11 Jan 90, with intent to deceive, make to CID investigator Sgt V_B_, an official statement, to wit: "I deny ever using cocaine", which statement was totally false and was then known by the said Sgt M_ (Applicant) to be so false.
         Finding: to Charge I and Charge II and the specifications thereunder, guilty.
         Sentence: Forfeiture of $747.00 pay per month for 1 month, reduced to E-4.
         CA action 900611: Sentence approved and ordered executed.
901105:  Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct [wrongful use of controlled substance, i.e., cocaine]. Necessary corrective actions explained as follows: 1 Dec 90 you will be placed on the USP as a result of this illegal drug involvement, will be tested twice a week for 4 weeks, if at end of surveillance period, there are not drugs found in urine sample you will be disenrolled from this program. Sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.

901212:  Special Court-Martial.
         Charge I: violation of the UCMJ, Article 112a: Wrongfully use a controlled substance, to wit: cocaine
         Findings: to Charge I and specification thereunder, guilty.
Sentence: Reduction to E-1, and a bad conduct discharge.
          CA 910221: Sentence approved and ordered executed except for the BCD.

910522:  Placed on involuntary appellate leave.

911127:  NC&PB denied clemency and restoration, but advised applicant must be afforded opportunity for thirty days inpatient substance abuse treatment at VA Medical Center (VAMC) prior to discharge.

920123:  NMCCMR: Affirmed findings and sentence.

920513:  SSPCMO: Article 71c, UCMJ, having been complied with, Bad Conduct discharge ordered executed. Commanding Officer, Separations Company, Headquarters and Support Battalion, Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton was directed to offer the applicant an opportunity for 30 days inpatient substance abuse treatment at a VAMC and to discharge the applicant with a bad conduct discharge after completion of the inpatient treatment or waiver thereof. [ Date of discharge as 13 May 92, due to the SSPCMO, is not verified because of incomplete records].

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 920513 with a bad conduct discharge which was the sentence adjudged by a properly constituted special court martial that was determined to be legal and proper, and affirmed in the legal chain of review and executed (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).

Issue 1. In response to the applicant’s issue, relevant and material facts stated in a court-martial specification are presumed by the NDRB to be established facts. 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). The applicant’s case was considered under the pertinent standards of equity to determine if any factors in this particular case merited clemency. The applicant states he was not given rehabilitation between the dates of his two Court-Martial convictions for use of cocaine. This argument was used as an assignment of error by the applicant’s defense after the second trial by Court-Martial. The argument was rejected by the court, with the findings and sentence approved. Relief denied.

The applicant states he was not given rehabilitation treatment after his second conviction at a trial by Court-Martial for use of cocaine. The NC&PB denied clemency and restoration, but advised applicant must be afforded opportunity for thirty days inpatient substance abuse treatment at VA Medical Center (VAMC) prior to discharge. There is no record of whether or not the applicant received the treatment directed by the NC&PB, or if the applicant waived the opportunity for treatment. Therefore the Board presumes regularity in the processing of the applicant’s discharge. Relief will not be granted on this issue.

Issue 2. The applicant provided no evidence of outstanding post service conduct. The applicant’s discharge characterization accurately reflects his service to his country. The discharge was proper and equitable. Normally, to permit relief, an error or injustice must have existed during the period of enlistment in question. No such error or injustice occurred during the applicant’s enlistment. Additionally, 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 civilian life, subsequent to leaving the service. However, the NDRB is authorized to consider outstanding post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge, 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. Verifiable proof of any post-service accomplishments must be provided in order for the applicant to claim post-service conduct and behavior as a reason to upgrade a less than Honorable discharge. Evidence of continuing educational pursuits, an employment record, documentation of community service, certification of non-involvement with civil authorities and proof of his not using drugs, are examples of verifiable documents that should have been provided to receive consideration for clemency, based on post-service conduct. The applicant did not provide sufficient documentation to warrant an upgrade to his discharge. He is reminded that he remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of his discharge. The applicant can provide additional documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments at that time. Legal representation at a personal appearance hearing is highly recommended but not required. Relief denied.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A. Paragraph 1105, DISCHARGE ADJUDGED BY SENTENCE OF COURTS-MARTIAL , 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 112a, wrongful use of a controlled substance.
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 “ afls10.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 | MD01-00227

    Original file (MD01-00227.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I've served 11 years 9 months and 28 days of active service and was discharged with a Bad conduct discharge as a result of a Special Court Martial for a violation of Article 114A of the uniform code of Military Justice. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214 (2 copies) Discharge Upgrading Questionnaire (10 pages) PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of...

  • USMC | DRB | 2002_Marine | MD02-00755

    Original file (MD02-00755.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION Charge I: violation of the UCMJ, Article 86: Did, on or about 990823, without authority absent himself from his unit, until on or about 990825. 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.

  • USMC | DRB | 2000_Marine | MD00-00552

    Original file (MD00-00552.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 [ e.g., Article 86, unauthorized absence for more than 30 days]. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004 Marine | MD04-00375

    Original file (MD04-00375.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Sentence: Reduction to E-1, and a bad conduct discharge. 880811: Staff Judge Advocate’s review of BCD Special Court-Martial indicates the awarded sentence was legal. Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)A. Paragraph 1105, DISCHARGE ADJUDGED BY SENTENCE OF COURTS-MARTIAL, of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16C), effective 821001 until 890626.

  • USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-00023

    Original file (MD03-00023.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    920122: CORRECTIVE ADMIN ACTION: CG, 3d MARDIV directed CO, 4 PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 19930420 with a bad conduct discharge which was the sentence adjudged by a properly constituted special court-martial that was determined to be legal and proper, affirmed by appellate review authority and executed (A and B). The Manual for Courts-Martial authorizes the award of a punitive discharge if adjudged as part of the...

  • USMC | DRB | 2001_Marine | MD01-00371

    Original file (MD01-00371.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. (Equity Issue) Pursuant to 10 USC 874 (b) (UCMJ, Article 74) and in accordance with SECNAVINST 5420.174C, enclosure (1), paragraph 2.24 and 9.3, this former member requests the Board's clemency relief with up-grade of her characterization of service to under honorable conditions on the basis...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00657

    Original file (ND02-00657.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    (DAV Issue) After a review of the Former Service Members (FSM) DD Form 293 Application for the Naval Discharge Review Board of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States and all of the evidence assembled for review, we continue to support the contentions as set forth by the Applicant, in his request that he be given the opportunity to upgrade his Bad Conduct Discharge to a General Discharge (Under Honorable Conditions) Discharge. The (FSM) desires now to have his Bad...

  • USMC | DRB | 2001_Marine | MD01-00835

    Original file (MD01-00835.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) also advised that the board first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 000718 with a bad conduct discharge which was the sentence adjudged by a properly constituted special court martial that was determined to be legal and proper, affirmed in the legal chain of...

  • USMC | DRB | 2002_Marine | MD02-01034

    Original file (MD02-01034.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD02-01034 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020715, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. Issues, as submitted Pursuant to 10 USC, section 874 (b), (UCMJ, Article 74) and in accordance with SECNAVINST 5420.174C, enclosure (1), paragraphs 2.24 and 9.3, this former member requests the Board’s clemency relief with up-grade of his characterization of service on the basis of his post-service conduct. PART III –...

  • USMC | DRB | 2001_Marine | MD01-00367

    Original file (MD01-00367.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 901015 with a bad conduct discharge which was the sentence adjudged by a properly constituted special court martial that was determined to be legal and proper, and affirmed in the legal chain of review and executed (A and 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...