Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2001_Marine | MD01-00470
Original file (MD01-00470.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-PFC, USMC
Docket No. MD01-00470

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 010228, 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 applicant did not list any representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 020118. 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

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:
Copy of DD Form 214 (2 copies)
Two pages from applicant's service record
Letter from applicant's wife dated January 6, 2000

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: None
         Inactive: USMCR(J)                920529 - 930119  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 930120               Date of Discharge: 940808

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 01 06 19
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 22                          Years Contracted: UNKNOWN

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 00

 Highest Rank: LCpl

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Proficiency: 3.9 (6)                       Conduct: 3.5 (6)

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: Unknown

 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 :

930701:  Applicant promoted to PFC.

940301:  Applicant promoted to LCPL.

940317:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article Unknown:
 Awarded forfeiture of $466.00 per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duties for 30 days. Forfeiture suspended for 6 months. Not appealed.
940317:  Applicant reduced to PFC.

940720:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article Unknown:
 Awarded forfeiture of $217.00 per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duties for 14 days. Forfeiture suspended for 6 months. Not appealed.
940808:  Applicant discharged under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.


All entries from Unit Diary.

Applicant's discharge package not found.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 940808 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to drug abuse (A and B). The applicant’s service record was incomplete. 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 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 failed to provide documentary evidence to demonstrate his sobriety, positive community service, employment history, and clean police record. Relief is not warranted.

The applicant remains 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 P1900.16D), 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.
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 | MD03-00932

    Original file (MD03-00932.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the Applicant’s service was discovered by the NDRB. Not appealed.941006: NAVDRUGLAB San Diego, CA reported Applicant’s urine sample, received 940930, tested positive for THC.941107: Applicant notified of intended...

  • USMC | DRB | 2000_Marine | MD00-00240

    Original file (MD00-00240.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Aviation Maintenance Technician Certification (Powerplant) Aviation Maintenance Technician Certification (Airframe) Copy of Mechanic Certificate from Department of Transportation Copies of DD Form 214 (2) PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: USMC None Inactive: USMCR(J) 910962 - 920824 COG Period of...

  • USMC | DRB | 2000_Marine | MD00-00426

    Original file (MD00-00426.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).The applicant introduced no decisional issues for consideration by the Board. 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., 112a, wrongful use of...

  • USMC | DRB | 2001_Marine | MD01-00805

    Original file (MD01-00805.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. The applicant used illegal drugs. 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).

  • 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 | 1999_Marine | MD99-00899

    Original file (MD99-00899.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Issues Prior to the documentary discharge review, the applicant introduced no issues as block 8 on the DD Form 293 is blank. Disciplinary and administrative discharge warnings issued.960311: Counseled regarding deficiencies, specifically, the illegal drug involvement, use of marijuana, identified through NAVDRUGLAB SDCA urinalysis test, 162023Z JAN 96. You may obtain a copy of DoD Directive 1332.28 by writing to: DA Military Review Boards Agency Management Information and Support...

  • USMC | DRB | 1999_Marine | MD99-00952

    Original file (MD99-00952.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Issues Prior to the documentary discharge review, the applicant introduced no issues as block 8 on the DD Form 293 is blank. You should read Enclosure (5) of the Directive before submitting such a complaint. You may obtain a copy of DoD Directive 1332.28 by writing to: DA Military Review Boards Agency Management Information and Support Directorate Armed Forces Reading Room Washington, D.C. 20310-1809The names, and votes of the members of the Board are recorded on the original of this...

  • 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.

  • USMC | DRB | 2000_Marine | MD00-00334

    Original file (MD00-00334.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. In determining whether a case merits a change based on post-service conduct, the NDRB considers the length of time since discharge, the applicant's record of community service, employment, conduct, educational achievements, and family relationships. At this time the applicant has not provided sufficient...

  • USMC | DRB | 2000_Marine | MD00-00266

    Original file (MD00-00266.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Issues Prior to the documentary discharge review, the applicant introduced no issues as block 8 on the DD Form 293 is blank. 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. PART IV - INFORMATION FOR THE APPLICANT If you believe that the decision in your case is unclear, not responsive...