Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2001_Marine | MD01-00319
Original file (MD01-00319.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-PFC, USMCR
Docket No. MD01-00319

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 010124, 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 010906. 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 (with admin discharge board required but waived), authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6210.5.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

Prior to the documentary discharge review, the applicant introduced no issues as block 8 on the DD Form 293 is blank.

Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
Character reference from Member of Congress dated October 31, 2000
Character reference from House of Representative dated November 9, 2000
Letter from applicant dated October 31, 2000
Letter of reference from district attorney, Daupin County undated
Character reference dated November 2, 2000
Character reference from Pastor, Tree of Life Lutheran Church dated November 3, 2000
Character reference dated November 2, 2000

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: None
         Inactive: None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 850305               Date of Discharge: 880505

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 00 03 23
         Inactive: 02 10 07

 Age at Entry: 17                          Years Contracted: 6

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 51

 Highest Rank: LCpl

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Proficiency: 4.4 (10)             Conduct: 4.3 (10)

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: Letter of Appreciation (2)

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

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

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

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

850328:  Enlistment contract into the USMCR documents acknowledgement of the requirement to participate in 48 scheduled drills and not less than 14 days of annual training per year or perform annually not more than 30 days of active duty.

850603:  Applicant to initial active duty for training.

850828:  Applicant released from initial active duty training.

860309:  Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct. [Attendance of Second Increment IADT for MOS training during the period 860610 to 860731.] Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.

870613:  Applicant to active duty for training.

870627   Applicant release from active duty.

 870717:  NAVDRUGLAB, Jacksonville, FL, reported applicant’s urine sample, received 870706, tested positive for THC.

870823:  Applicant received Level I drug and alcohol counseling and placed on unit's urinalysis screening program.

870916:  NAVDRUGLAB, Jacksonville, FL, reported applicant’s urine sample, received 870901, tested positive for THC.

 871002:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 112A:
 Specification: Wrongful possession of controlled substances at CoE, 2/25Mar, 4thMarDiv; NAVDRUGLAB Jacksonville, FL msg 170925Z 870700 ZYB, identified SNM's urine positive for THC. Random urinalysis taken on 870627.
Awarded forfeiture of $31.00 per month for 1 month, reduction to PFC. Not appealed.
871030:  NAVDRUGLAB, Jacksonville, FL, reported applicant’s urine sample, received 871019, tested positive for THC.

871125:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.
880204:  Applicant to active duty for training.

880216:  Applicant released from active duty training.

 880305:  Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse. The factual basis for this recommendation was drug abuse.

880415:  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.

880427:  GCMCA, Commanding General, 4 th Marine Division (Rein), 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 880505 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 introduced no decisional issues for consideration by the Board.

 The applicant was found guilty at NJP of violation of UCMJ Article 112a, wrongful use
of controlled substance, while on active duty. After testing positive for THC on the first
occasion, the applicant received Level I drug and alcohol counseling and was placed on
the unit’s urinalysis screening program. The applicant then tested positive on two
subsequent urinalysis’s for THC. Relief is not warranted.

 The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the re characterization of a discharge. 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, may be considered by the NDRB. The applicant provided several character references but failed to provide documentary evidence to demonstrate his sobriety, positive community service, employment history, and clean police record. Relief is not warranted.

The applicant is eligible for a personal appearance hearing provided the application is received within 15 years from the date of discharge. Representation at personal appearance hearing is recommended .











Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A. Paragraph 6210 MISCONDUCT , of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16C), Change 4, effective 29 Jul 87 until 26 Jun 89.

 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 | 2003_Marine | MD03-01333

    Original file (MD03-01333.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD03-01333 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030805. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. 000814: Applicant advised of rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge Board.010123: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable...

  • USMC | DRB | 2001_Marine | MD01-00426

    Original file (MD01-00426.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD01-00426 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010213, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. 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 at the time of issue. Change 2 not applicable to SPD Codes or Narrative Reason for...

  • USMC | DRB | 1999_Marine | MD99-00880

    Original file (MD99-00880.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The next day when I got to work Sgt B____ told me I was UA yesterday. 970623: NAVDRUGLAB JACKSONVILLE FL reported applicant’s urine sample, received 970613, tested positive for [THC] [Extracted from case file].970630: Medical evaluation for drug abuse found the applicant to be drug dependent. 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2001_Marine | MD01-01032

    Original file (MD01-01032.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Advised that processing for administrative separation for misconduct is mandatory.990218: Medical evaluation for drug abuse found the applicant to be a drug abuser (isolated incident), not drug dependent. 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. PART IV - INFORMATION FOR THE APPLICANT If you believe that the decision in your case is unclear, not...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00405

    Original file (ND02-00405.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Commanding Officer recommended separate from service.880304: Medical evaluation for drug abuse found the Applicant to be an episodic alcohol abuser and poly drug abuser, not drug dependent. 880311: An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence and by unanimous vote, found that the Applicant had committed misconduct due to drug abuse, that the misconduct warranted separation, and recommended discharge under honorable conditions (general). PART III – RATIONALE...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00390

    Original file (ND01-00390.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    During the time I was tested for the THC, I was around several people at a party. The applicant did not provide any post-service documentation for the Board to consider. 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:

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01250

    Original file (ND99-01250.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. The discharge shall remain: UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.The NDRB did note an administrative error on the original DD Form 214. 950606: An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence and by unanimous...

  • USMC | DRB | 2002_Marine | MD02-01238

    Original file (MD02-01238.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD02-01238 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 20020828, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable or general/under honorable conditions. I was 18 at the time of the accident, but not being able to do some of the things I used can do, had me looking at life in a different way. Relief not warranted.The Applicant is reminded that he remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is...

  • USMC | DRB | 2002_Marine | MD02-00464

    Original file (MD02-00464.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I was not lying nor was I ever on drugs in the marine corp.This matter needs to be looked into, I know I am not the only one this happened to.Applicant marked the box "I PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED AN APPLICATION (Enter Date) AND AM COMPLETING THIS FORM IN ORDER TO SUBMIT ADDITIONAL ISSUES.” The previous application was returned to the Applicant on 23 Apr 01 because records were not available from St. Louis (less than 9 months). Documentation In addition to the service record, the following...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00681

    Original file (ND99-00681.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 (C and D).In the applicant’s issue 1, the Board determined this issue is without merit. The NDRB reviews the propriety (did the Navy follow its own rules in processing the applicant for discharge) and equity (did the applicant receive a discharge characterization in keeping with Navy guidance or was the characterization...