Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2004 Marine | MD04-00634
Original file (MD04-00634.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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


ex-LCpl, USMC
Docket No. MD04-00634

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20040303. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. 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 20041008. 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. “I was processed out of the United States Marine Corp for substance abuse with an other than honorable discharge. I feel that I was not treated fairly during my NIP nor my review board, Therefore hurting my chances for finishing my contract. Now I was not the best marine, But I was among the best in my MOS, and could still hold my own in the field. If you look in my record book you will see that this incident cannot outweigh all the positive things that 1 have done in the marine corp. There is another incident that you will see in my record book that needs to be addressed, which I will also try to do during this statement.
When I received notice that I had popped positive on the urinalysis. The squadron was on deployment in Germany and I was immediately taken out of my shop and placed on duty in the barracks 24hrs. On 24hrs. Off for the rest of the deployment. Now even though I was the butt of every ones jokes. I kept my mouth shut and did what I was told cause I figured it was punishment for the urinalysis. After the squadron returned home I was placed in the tool room on night crew by myself to check In/Out tools. During my NJP I thought I had a good chance because in my statement to the C.O. I gave him the name and number of a witness that could have helped me, But he just ignored it and told me that I should of used better judgment, which maybe true but I still think he should have contacted the witness. So after my NJP where I was busted to CPL and placed on EMI, I was ridiculed even more by members of the squadron no matter the rank. Even though I received my punishment during my NJP. I was given extra duty including duty during the Marine Corp ball, placed on funeral detail, put on every working party, and sometimes on night crew I missed chow because no one would watch the tool room while I ate. I knew then that the squadron hated me and I hated them. Since my marine corp. days were coming to an end I decided to start preparing for my transition to civilian life. Even that was no easy task, I had to threaten Msgt L_ with requesting mast before he would move my EMI to the morning hours so that I could take classes in the evening for my FCC license, And it was like pulling teeth to get enrolled in TAPs class. Well, this went on for over a year and even though I tried not to let it bother me, My attitude along with my temper got worse and I couldn’t take it any more which led to the second NIP in question.
I was now a LCPL and my situation wasn’t looking any better. I was still very angry, still stuck in the tool room and now I can add financial problems to the mix. By now I had distanced myself from the majority of the squadron and only spoke to a couple friends. It finally came time for my review board and I knew I was going to have to answer for my mistakes. I wasn’t too concerned about the 2nd NIP I had received because I thought I could get them to understand how the constant abuse led me to not care anymore. Plus I had some great character witnesses and I knew that other than the two NIP’S, there wasn’t anyone the prosecutor could have found to testify against me. My best witness was captain s_, a fighter pilot whom I worked with when I was attached to VMFA-312 and had the opportunity to work with again in VMFA-142. The prosecution managed to round up one witness, CWO2 H_ who checked into the squadron as the AMO while the squadron was in German, so I didn’t know him and because I was placed in the tool room when we got home I never worked with him or directly for him. Despite the fact that gunner H_ didn’t know me he arrived at my review board with nothing but negative things to say about me. The following day CWO2 H_ apologized to me for the negative statements he made during my review board, and stated that he was instructed to do so by the CO. who did not want me to remain in the corp. This apology came at too late a time and too high a cost. In my opinion the boards decision was based on his testimony, But I was told by my appointed attorney that the decision was based on my non-desire to stay in the marine corp. How could I stay in the marine corp after all that’s happened? Besides I was a staff select and now I’m a LCPL there’s no recovering from that and my peers would never let me forget it. Anyway I had a lot of good times in the corp. and I learned a lot and if I could change anything about my enlistment, not only would I have not gotten those two NJP’s but I would have taken my’ avionics division officer CWO2 D_’s advice and not select his former squadron when I reenlisted. He told me the type of things that went on over there but I didn’t listen.
Anyway I’m not writing this statement to point blame, With the skills and discipline that I’ve learned in the marine corp. I’ve been able to move on with my life. I have been working steadily as an electrician for over a year, I've received my FCC license, and I'm the proud father of a new baby boy. The only thing that I'm not proud of is the discharge I received from the military. I admit that I have made mistakes which I apologize for, but I've paid for these mistakes time and time again since my first NJP and I don't believe I should have to pay for them anymore. I pray that you will understand my plea and stop this blemish from following me around for the rest of my life.”

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

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: USMC              950214 – 991209  HON
          Inactive: USMCR(J)                940713 - 950213  COG
Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 991210               Date of Discharge: 020913

 Length of Service (years, months, days):
         Active: 02 09 04
          Inactive: None
Age at Entry: 23                          Years Contracted: 4

Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 59
Highest Rank: Sgt                          MOS: 6317

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages:
 All fitness reports were available for review
Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM, GCM, NATO, CA, MUC, SSDR (w/1*), MM (2)

 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 :

991210:  Reenlisted at VMFA 312, MCAS Beaufort, SC.
010614:  NAVDRUGLAB Jacksonville, FL, reported Applicant’s urine sample, received 010608, tested positive for THC.
010715:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 112a: Wrongful use of a controlled substance.
 Awarded forfeiture of $826.00 per month for 2 months, reduction to Cpl. Not appealed.
020102:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse as evidenced by a positive urinalysis.
020201:  Applicant advised of rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge Board.
020203:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: UA from place of duty on 020117; violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Violated a lawful order by leaving his security post at 1600, 020117; violation of UCMJ, Article 113: misbehavior of a sentinel on 020117.
 Awarded 45 days extra duty, reduction to LCpl. Not appealed.
020611:  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 other than honorable conditions.

021002:  SJA review determined the case sufficient in law and fact.
021002:  GCMCA [CG, 4 th MAW] directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.

 Partial discharge package

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20020913 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to drug abuse (A). 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 (B and C). The presumption of regularity of governmental affairs was applied by the Board in this case in the absence of a complete discharge package (D).
Issue 1. 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. 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 during the enlistment under review. Normally, to permit relief, an inequity or impropriety must have existed during the period of enlistment in question. No such inequity or impropriety 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, or 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 his misconduct sufficient to warrant an upgrade to his discharge. 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 P1900.16F), effective 01 September 2001 until Present.

B. 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.
C. 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.

D. 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.

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 | 2003_Marine | MD03-00243

    Original file (MD03-00243.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Official Release: I received my check-out sheet to separate from the Marine Corps in March 2002, four months after my Administrative Separation Board hearing. Current Situation: My inequitable OTH Discharge has barred me from many well-deserved benefits as a military veteran who has served his country for 59 months. 011130: 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004 Marine | MD04-00232

    Original file (MD04-00232.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable or general/under honorable conditions. 020117: Applicant found fit for confinement.020508: DD Form 214: Applicant discharged under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.Applicant’s discharge package missing from service record. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 20020508...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004 Marine | MD04-01026

    Original file (MD04-01026.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD04-01026 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20040607. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable or general/under honorable conditions. I was discharged December 13, 2001 from the Marine Corps with an Other Than honorable discharge.

  • USMC | DRB | 1999_Marine | MD99-00444

    Original file (MD99-00444.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD99-00444 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 990208, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. Documentation The applicant’s service record was thoroughly reviewed. Not appealed.951016: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.951016: Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00355

    Original file (ND04-00355.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND04-00355 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20031218. Chief H_ was not designated in writing by the Commanding Officer to be the command UPC until 06 Nov. 2002, which is over two months after this test was taken. (PAGE 9) Exhibit B 7.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004 Marine | MD04-00484

    Original file (MD04-00484.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Ihope that you can understand that it was a stupid thing for me to have done and I have paid for it time and time again and can only hope that you believe me that the discharge is only half of the punishment I received on top of me being busted down forfeiture of pay extra duty and the way I was treated my last month of active duty, it was very painful knowing I let down my family my friends my fellow marines and my country more than all of that I let down myself and I have to live with that...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01248

    Original file (ND03-01248.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-01248 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030717. Reason being, I knew I was innocent and clueless that the crime had even had even taken place, until I was questioned by SA F_. Since, I was in the Navy the Army had to transfer the case over to the Navy for a trial.

  • USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0500925

    Original file (MD0500925.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. They kicked me out for alcohol rehabilitation failure. The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of her service, falls well below that required for an honorable characterization of service.

  • USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-00852

    Original file (MD03-00852.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD03-00852 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030409. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Upon receiving the test results, 1st Sgt.

  • USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0500612

    Original file (MD0500612.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION Commanding Officer further stated: “I personally intervened a year ago to deny an Administrative Discharge request on Private S_ (Applicant) submitted by the Commanding Officer of HMH-463. 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:Secretary of the Navy Council of Review Boards