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




ex-LCpl, USMC
Docket No. MD03-01481

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20030910. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. The Applicant requests a documentary record 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 20040608. 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. Psychiatric problems I had impaired my ability to serve, and so warrants an upgrade to honorable. I was being treated for severe problems with depression and suicidal ideations. I was currently seeking help from a psychiatrist and on anti-depressive medications for numerous personal problems, to include the recent death of a brother. Had I not been in the current mental state at the time of my incident with smoking marijuana, which ii know prevented me from pursuing a suicidal thought at the time. I would not have taken any illegal drug substances. Although I entered into the Marine Corp with a drug waiver for marijuana, it was truly a one time incident as a Marine, and did not endanger anyone.
2. The punishment I got at discharge was too harsh-it was much worse than most people got for the same offense, and so warrants an upgrade to honorable. I was deducted two pay grades for my offense. I was also deducted pay in the amount of $1,428, restricted to the barracks for 45 days and assigned daily clean up of the squadron area two hours a day for 45 days. I feel that all of these punishments together, especially the loss of two pay grades, was excessive in regards to what I feel to have been a minor offense.
3. My discharge was based solely on drug use, and so warrants an upgrade to honorable. My single drug use incident did not accompany any other offenses. I willingly accepted all punishments deemed necessary by my command without resistance, or defiance. I continued to conduct myself as an outstanding Marine, on and off base, through out my entire Marine Corp career.
4. Aside from the drugs, my service record was outstanding, and so warrants an upgrade to honorable. I was the first in my squadron to volunteer for the Corporals Course training, setting an example for fellow Marines, and I was presented with many Letters of Appreciations, Meritorious Mast, and a medal of good conduct.
5. My drug use was off duty, and so warrants an upgrade to honorable. I was not on duty, jeopardizing the conduct of any other marines, during my incident. I was said to be a bad example to other Marines, but had a service record that spoke for itself saying otherwise.
6. My drug use was off base, and so warrants an upgrade to honorable. I was not on any government property, or near any military establishments at the time of my offense. I was out of uniform and my minor offense with marijuana did not endanger anyone.
7. I was never involved in selling or trafficking of drugs, and so warrants an upgrade to honorable. My offense was a one time minor offense of consumption, and was not accompanied by any large offenses such as selling or trafficking of drugs
8. My conduct and efficiency ratings/behavior and proficiency marks were all pretty good, and so warrants an upgrade to honorable. My average proficiency and conduct scores were higher than average. There was nothing about my conduct as a marine that warrants anything less than an honorable discharge.
9. I received awards and decorations, and so warrants an upgrade to honorable. I received Letters of Appreciation, Meritorious Mast, Good Conduct medal and had set the example by volunteering for many tasks most Marines would not perform.
10. My record of promotions showed that I was generally a good service member, and so warrants an upgrade to honorable. I was promoted to the rank of Sergeant with in three years of my enlistment, that accomplishment is not one performed by a Marine deserving anything less than an honorable discharge.
11. There were other acts of merit, and so warrants an upgrade to honorable. I successfully took charge as the Avionics Work Center Supervisor, took control of my job by obtaining many certifications that other marines in my position had failed to accomplish, and overall was a better Marine than many others who were given better discharges then myself.
12. I was so close to finishing my tour that it was unfair to give me a bad discharge, and so warrants an upgrade to honorable. I had successfully completed five and a half years of my enlistment, with only 6 months to completion. This one time incident was not a problem considering it did not affect the safety to anyone. There were many other problems with Marines drinking and driving who could easily have injured or murdered other people, and received far less punishment than me.
13. I have been a good citizen since discharge, and so warrant an upgrade to honorable. I have not had any drinking, drug, or even traffic violations or problems since my discharge from the Marine Corp. This only further proves the oversight of the situation. I do not have the type of personality that should be labeled as anything other than an honorable Marine, with an honorable discharge from service.
14. Personal problems impaired my ability to serve, and so warrants an upgrade to honorable. I had been going through many difficult problems, severe depression, the death of a brother, suicidal ideations due to this and an uncontrollable amount of stress due to aircraft maintenance responsibility’s. I was given the opportunity to be discharged medically but turned the opportunity down because I know I am not a quitter. Being the outstanding Marine I was, I deserved to be able to finish my enlistment, setting the example of character, and receiving the honorable discharge I worked hard towards obtaining, and deserve .”

Documentation

In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:

Applicant’s DD Form 214
Employee reference letter from W_ B_
Employee reference letter from A_ R_
Letter from Applicant’s wife
Police record check
College transcript
Platt College honor roll certificate
Character reference from K_ D_
Fitness report
Witness questionnaire
SACO screening referral
Five pages from service record

---

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):

         Active: None
         Inactive: USMCR(J)                930824 - 940301  COG

Period of Service Under Review :

Date of Enlistment: 940302               Date of Discharge: 990728

Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 05 04 27
         Inactive: None

Age at Entry: 18                          Years Contracted: 6

Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 69

Highest Rank: Sgt

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Proficiency: 4.6 (Unknown)                         Conduct: 4.6 (Unknown)

Fitness reports were available from 970701 to 990212

Military Decorations: None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM, SSDR, GCM, MUC, LoA (2), MM

Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

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 :

930823:  Initial enlistment contract documents admission of pre-service marijuana experimentation. Enlistment waiver granted. Applicant briefed upon and certified understanding of Marine Corps policy concerning illegal use of drugs.

960607:  Examination by Yuma Psychology Clinic, NH Camp Pendleton, CA assessed the Applicant with alcohol abuse in partial remission and avoidant traits. Returned to full duty.

990208:  NAVDRUGLAB [San Diego, CA], reported Applicant’s urine sample, received 990201, tested positive for THC.

990212:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 112a: Use THC on or about 990201.
Awarded forfeiture of $714.00 per month for 2 months, restriction for 45 days, reduction to Cpl. Not appealed.

990219:  Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.

990310:  Counseled regarding deficiencies, specifically, the illegal use of THC. Necessary corrective actions explained. Sources of assistance identified. Disciplinary and administrative discharge warnings issued.

990318:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse as evidenced by positive urinalysis and self-admittance of drug abuse.

990324:  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.

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

990715:  GCMCA [CG, 3d MAW] 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 19990728 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 1-14. 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. Despite a service member’s prior record of service, certain serious offenses, even though isolated, warrant separation from the Marine Corps in order to maintain proper order and disciplined. The evidence of record does not demonstrate that the Applicant was not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions. Relief denied.

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 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