Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-00944
Original file (MD03-00944.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-PFC, USMC
Docket No. MD03-00944

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20030502. 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 did not list any representative on the DD Form 293. Subsequent to the application, the Applicant obtained representation from the Disabled American Veterans.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20040401. 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: UNDER OTHER THAN 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. “After being released from Walter Reed Medical Center I was informed by my company C.O. (W.O. C_) that my medical diagnosis and request for discharge was denied by him. At that time I was prescribed an antidepressant, trezadone, which had a severe side effect on my physical performance.” Five months later, (April), several other Marines and myself were questioned for the use of cannabis Sativa. I was truthful about experimenting with this drug, but I did not receive an NJP until the month of August. I never failed a urine exam. Meanwhile correction and military police were failing urinalysis and receiving slaps on the wrist. After serving out my 60 days of restriction. I was released two days later (Nov. 11, 1998). I still had the option to continue active duty.”

Additional issues submitted by Applicant’s representative (Disabled American Veterans):

 2. “Dear Chairperson:

After a review of the Former Service Members (FSM) DD Form 293 Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States and all of the evidence assembled for review, we continue to note the contention of the appellant in his request for a discharge upgrade of his current Other Than Honorable to that of Honorable.

The FSM served on active service from September 3, 1996 to November 20, 1998 at which time he was discharged due to Misconduct.

As the FSM has not submitted any documentation in support of his claim, we as the representative, ask that consideration be given to equitable relief, as this is a matter that involves a determination whether a discharge should be changed under the equity standards, to include any issue upon which the Applicant submits to the Board’s discretionary authority, under SECNAVIST 5420.174C.

We ask for the Board’s careful and sympathetic consideration of all the evidence of record used in rendering a fair and impartial decision. These issues do not supersede any issues previously submitted by the Applicant.

Respectfully,”




 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Applicant’s DD Form 214 (Member 1) (3)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: None
         Inactive: USMCR(J)                950816 - 960825  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 960826               Date of Discharge: 981120

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 02 02 25
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 18                          Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 55

 Highest Rank: LCpl

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Proficiency: 4.1 (6)                       Conduct: 4.2 (6)

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: None

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: 8

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority: MARCORSEPMAN 6210.5.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

950815:  Applicant briefed upon and certified understanding of Marine Corps policy concerning illegal use of drugs.
970923:  Naval Medical Clinic, Mental Health Department: Diagnoses: Adjustment disorder with depressed mood.
971024:  Applicant to Walter Reed Army Medical Center.

 971030:  Applicant released from Walter Reed Army Medical Center following psychiatric evaluation. Diagnoses: adjustment disorder with depressed mood, and a personality disorder with borderline and histrionic traits.
971118:  Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct. [Suicidal tendencies and ideation’s which led to your hospitalization from 971024 to 971031.] Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.
980514:  Naval Medical Clinic, Mental Health Department: Diagnoses: Axis I: Adjustment disorder with disturbance of emotions and conduct, cannabis abuse. Axis II: Personality disorder, not otherwise specified (borderline features).
980518:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86:
 Specification: Unauthorized absence from 0730, 980430 to 1845, 980508 (8 days/surrendered).
Awarded restriction for 15 days. Not appealed.
980827:  Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct. [Illegal drug involvement, marijuana usage identified through my voluntary statement to the Criminal Investigation Division.] Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.
980828:  CSACC evaluation: Impression: Alcohol dependence. Cannabis abuse.

980902:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 112A:
 Specification: Wrongfully used marijuana during April 1998.
Awarded forfeiture of $514.00 per month for 2 months, restriction for 60 days, reduction to PFC. Not appealed.
981015:  Applicant evaluated by a medical officer and diagnosed as being alcohol and drug dependent. Applicant refused treatment in conjunction with discharge.

981019:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.
981019:  Applicant advised of 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.

981026:  Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse. The factual basis for this recommendation was wrongful use of marijuana, a controlled substance.

981030:  SJA review determined the case sufficient in law and fact.

981106:  GCMCA [Commanding General, Marine Corps Base, Quantico, VA] 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 19981120 under other than honorable conditions 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).

Issues 1 and 2. There is credible evidence in the record that the Applicant used illegal drugs. Drug abuse warranted processing for separation. Separation under these conditions generally results in characterization of service under other than honorable conditions. Relief denied.

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 is evident 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. 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

  • USMC | DRB | 2001_Marine | MD01-00255

    Original file (MD01-00255.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Mbr admitted that one of the routine activities they do in their get-togethers is to use marijuana. Pt does not want admission to hospital nor think it is indicated as pt does not appear to be an eminent treat to self or others. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was neither proper nor equitable (D and E).In reviewing the record, the Board noted both the applicant’s enlistment waiver...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00843

    Original file (ND01-00843.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00843 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010611, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. Dear Chairperson:After a review of the Former Service Members (FSM) DD Form 293 Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States and all of the evidence assembled for review, we continue to note the request of the appellant of an upgrade of his...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01301

    Original file (ND02-01301.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-01301 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 20020911, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. As the representative, we ask that consideration be given to equitable relief, as this is a matter that involves a determination whether a discharge should be changed under the equity standards, to include any issue upon which the applicant submits to the Board’s discretionary authority,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00702

    Original file (ND04-00702.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND04-00702 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20040324. The narrative of his DD Form 214, issued 12 May, 2003, would have anyone believe that he was a drug abuser, when in fact he admitted to taking a medication prescribed by a licensed medical provider almost two years prior to entry into the Navy. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00450

    Original file (ND02-00450.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant is not eligible for further review by the Naval Discharge Review Board. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Sixteen pages from Applicant's service record Copy of DD Form 214 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: None Inactive: USNR (DEP) 860514 - 860923 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 860924 Date...

  • USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-00981

    Original file (MD03-00981.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD03-00981 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030513. During my time at Marine Security Guard School I was promoted to Corporal (E-4), and received a Good Conduct Medal for 3 years of continuous good conduct. 000415: 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00062

    Original file (ND00-00062.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND00-00062 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 001013, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. 841016: CNMPC directed the applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse (use). There is nothing in the applicant’s record to support a medical discharge.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00932

    Original file (ND00-00932.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    (DAVE ISSUE) After review of the Former Service Member (FSM) DD Form 293 Application for the Review 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 corrective action as requested by the FSM of an upgrade of his Entry Level Separation to Honorable, and change of the RE Code of RE 3G to an RE-1 or RE-2. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00247

    Original file (ND00-00247.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. Relief denied.The applicant’s second issue states: “I no longer wanted to be in the US Navy. As I soon found out, that was not true.” The NDRB found the applicant was discharged for misconduct based on his admitted drug use.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-01200

    Original file (ND04-01200.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Block 28 states that I was separated from the Navy because of erroneous entry and drug abuse. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 20001109 with an entry level separation (uncharacterized) for defective enlistment and induction due to erroneous enlistment - drug abuse (A).