Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-00322
Original file (MD03-00322.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-PFC, USMC
Docket No. MD03-00322

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20021211. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review. The Applicant designated the American Legion as the representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20031121. 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. The Board’s vote was unanimous that the character of the discharge shall not change. The discharge shall remain: GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT, authority: MARCORSEPMAN 6210.5.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

 Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

1. “My discharge was inadequate due to the fact that it was based on one single event in the time that I served in the United States Marine Corps. No other adverse action on my part was made and throughout my service as a United States Marine I excelled in everything I did and received extemporary remarks from my piers and those above me as stated in my Board paperwork. I now have a family and have held a good job from the time I left the service till now, but because of my discharge I have no opportunity for advancement. I humbly ask for a review to honorable.”

Additional issues submitted by Applicant’s counsel/representative (American Legion):

“2. (Equity Issue) This former member further requests that the Board include provisions of SECNAVINST 5420.174C, enclosure (1), Chapter 9, as it pertains to post-service conduct, in assessing the merits of this application.”

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
None

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: None
         Inactive: USMCR(J)                980617 - 990621  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 990622               Date of Discharge: 010509

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 01 10 18
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 18                          Years Contracted: 5

 Education Level: 11                        AFQT: 66

 Highest Rank: LCpl

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Proficiency: 3.9 (5)                       Conduct: 3.8 (5)

 Military Decorations: None

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

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT, authority: MARCORSEPMAN 6210.5.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

980614:  Applicant briefed upon and certified understanding of Marine Corps policy concerning illegal use of drugs.
000928:  DRUGLAB [AFIERA BROOKS AFB, TX], reported Applicant’s urine sample, collected 000905, tested positive for cocaine.

001005:  Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct. [Illegal drug involvement (cocaine usage identified through urinalysis confirmed by AF drug lab AFIERA BROOKS AFB TX message 281847Z Sep00).] Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, discharge warning issued.
001005:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.
001005:  Applicant advised of his rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge Board.
001016:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 112A:
 Specification: Wrongful use, possession of controlled substance, on 000905, to wit: cocaine as evidenced by message from AFIERA BROOKS AFB TX 281847 Sep 00.
Awarded forfeiture of $563.00 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duties for 45 days, reduction to PFC. Extra duty suspended for 6 months. Not appealed.
001028:  Medical evaluation for drug abuse. Applicant refused to discuss information about drug use. He denied any history of alcohol use/abuse and a complete biopsychosocial intake was accomplished. Applicant declined services due to pending separation.

001214:  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 general (under honorable conditions).

010103:  Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse. The factual basis for this recommendation was on 000919, you were identified by the 95 th Medical Group as using cocaine in urine sample test received on 000905.

010416:  SJA review determined the case sufficient in law and fact.

010416:  GCMCA [Commander, Marine Forces Reserve] directed the Applicant's discharge general (under 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 20010509 under honorable conditions (general) 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).

 Issue 1. The Applicant states his discharge was based on one isolated incident with no other infractions. There is credible evidence in the record that the Applicant used illegal drugs. Even one instance of drug abuse warranted processing for separation. Separation under these conditions generally results in characterization of service under other than honorable conditions. Relief denied.
Issue 2. The Applicant’s discharge characterization accurately reflects his service to his country. Normally, to permit relief, an error or inequity must have existed during the period of enlistment in question. No such error or inequity 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, to enhance employment opportunities, or for 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, employment record, documentation of community service, certification of non-involvement with civil authorities and credible evidence of a substance free lifestyle, are examples of verifiable documentation that may be provided to receive consideration for relief, based on post-service conduct. The Applicant’s evidence of post-service conduct was found not to mitigate the offense for which he was discharged. Relief not warranted.

The Applicant 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. Representation at a personal appearance hearing is recommended but not required.






Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A. Paragraph 6210, MISCONDUCT , of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16E), effective 31 Jan 97 until Present.

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 | MD04-00605

    Original file (MD04-00605.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 20011228 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to drug abuse (A). The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflects his willful failure to meet the requirements of his...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00556

    Original file (ND00-00556.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I (applicant) was released from military service with an other than honorable due to drug test. No indication of appeal in the record.880519: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse as evidenced by your wrongful use of cocaine.880519: Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights.880523: Commanding...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00634

    Original file (ND02-00634.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT ex-RMSN, USN Docket No. The discharge shall remain: GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630620. The Applicant requested the Board review her post-service conduct, in assessing the merits of her application.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00972

    Original file (ND02-00972.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    he Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of service, reflects his disobedience of the orders and directives that regulate good order and discipline in the naval service, and falls short of that required for a fully honorable characterization of service. Evidence of continuing educational pursuits, a positive employment record, documentation of community service, and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities, are examples of verifiable...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00104

    Original file (ND02-00104.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board’s vote was unanimous that the character of service shall be administratively corrected to reflect the characterization of service directed by the applicant’s Commanding Officer: UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL)/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-146, formerly Article 3630620 but the characterization of service shall not be upgraded to "honorable", as requested.The NDRB did note an administrative error on the original DD Form 214. PART III – RATIONALE FOR...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00788

    Original file (ND01-00788.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I mainly just work and provide for my family. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214 DAV letter, 020220 Letters from applicant, 020323 and 010416 Character reference letters (x6) PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: None Inactive: USNR (DEP) 900104 - 900117 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment:...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01019

    Original file (ND02-01019.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    There are circumstances, however, where the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident may form the basis of characterization. The NDRB is authorized, however, 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. At this time, the Applicant has not provided documenta-tion...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00518

    Original file (ND00-00518.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT ex-BM3, USN Docket No. The NDRB considered the applicant’s entire service record, time in service, stated family problems (from ADB) and found that the discharge was proper and equitable . The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 18, effective 12 Dec 97 to 19 May 99, Article 1910-146 (formerly 3630620), Separation by Reason of Misconduct- Drug Abuse.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-01013

    Original file (ND00-01013.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Decision A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 010215. No indication of appeal in the record.871020: Medical evaluation for drug abuse found the applicant appears to be dependent on cocaine and in need of Level III treatment through the VA. 871027: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.871027: Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00524

    Original file (ND00-00524.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    This is technically his second incident but the first incident was never properly documented at previous command).860120: Report of Declaration of Deserter (NAVPERS 1600-3). 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’s issue states: “My discharge was inequitable because it was based on incidents which where isolated to a very small time period...