Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0500998
Original file (MD0500998.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB)
 DISCHARGE REVIEW
DECISIONAL DOCUMENT
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

ex-PFC, USMC
Docket No. MD05-00998

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20050520. The Applicant requests the Discharge 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 designate a representative on the DD Form 293.

 Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20050908. 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 by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

“I WISH TO REQUEST MY DISCHARGE BE CHANGED TO HONORABLE FOR THE REASONS OF, A CAREER IN LAW ENFORCEMENT. IT HAS BEEN 12 YEARS SINCE MY SEPERATION AND I UNDERSTAND I MADE A MISTAKE WHEN I WAS YOUNGER BUT I AM OLDER AND HAVE A FAMILY NOW. I AM TRYING TO BECOME A POLICE OFFICER AND IT HAS BEEN HARD WITH AN OTHER THAN HONORABLE DISCHARGE. I AM ASKING YOU TO PLEASE REVIEW MY REQUEST AND TO UNDERSTAND THAT I WAS YOUNG AND SINCE 1993 I HAVE CHANGED MY LIFE.”

 Documentation
Only the service record book and medical record were reviewed. The Applicant did not provide additional documentation for the Board’s consideration.

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USMCR (DEP)    19901031 – 19910915               COG
         Active: None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 19910916             Date of Discharge: 19930527

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

 Active: 01 08 12
         Inactive: None

 Time Lost During This Period (days):
         Unauthorized absence: None
         Confinement:              None

 Age at Entry: 17 (Parental Consent)

 Years Contracted: 4

Education Level: 12                                 AFQT: 33

 Highest Rank: PFC                                   MOS: 0341

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Proficiency: 4.2 (7)                                Conduct: 4.2 (7)

Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, (as stated on the DD Form 214): National Defense Service Medal, Letter of Appreciation, Rifle Badge Expert.


Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance):
UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Misconduct-Drug abuse (administrative discharge board required but waived), authority: MARCORSEPMAN 6210.5.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

910810:  Applicant briefed on and certified understanding of Marine Corps policy concerning illegal use of drugs.
920720:  Medical evaluation by Psychology Clinic, Kings Bay NSB, Kings Bay, GA: “He expressed a sense of deepening (anxiety confusion) and that he doesn’t trust himself handling weapons in the limited duty area. It was mistakenly not included in the psychology evaluation dated July 14, 1992. That the patient should be temporarily removed from Personnel Reliability Program (PRP) status until this matter of his motivation to be effective in the USMC is settled. Patient also reported that he is beginning to have suicidal ideations. He stated that he doesn’t know if anything would be settled if he did commit suicide. Patient appears to be so desperate to leave military status that he may act out aggression either against self or others to prove the point that he needs to be discharged.”

920723:  Commanding Officer, Marine Corps Security Force Company, Naval Submarine Base, Kings Bay, informed the Commandant of the Marine Corps that the Applicant was permanently decertified from the PRP due to psychological evaluation. The Commanding Officer recommended that the Applicant not be retained for future potential service in the Marine Corps. The command intended to process Applicant for discharge.

920723:  Commanding Officer, Marine Corps Security Force Company, notified the Applicant that permanent decertification from the PRP was being upheld as a result of the Applicant’s psychological evaluation.

920723:  Applicant acknowledged he has been permanently decertified from the Personnel Reliability Program.

920911:  Acknowledged understanding of eligibility but not recommended for promotion to LCpl for the month of October 1992 Promotion 1st Quarter because of lack of initiative and judgment. Applicant chose not to make a statement.

930325:  NAVDRUGLAB, Jacksonville, FL, reported Applicant’s urine sample, received 930316, tested positive for THC.

930330:  Consolidated Drug and Alcohol Center Consultation Report:
 Applicant evaluated for Substance Abuse. “This 20 year old, single, Caucasian, male, AD/USMC, PFC with 1 year and 6 months time in service was seen in consultation by SSGT H_ as a command referral due to positive urinalysis for THC in March 1993. History was obtained from the client, SRB, HR, and client profile form. The client’s disclosures appear to be reliable.”
          Formulation: Alcohol Abuse as evidenced by continued use in spite of known problems caused by use (underage drinking). Cannabis Abuse although he does not appear to meet criteria for abuse or dependence, it is considered to be an incident of abuse due to his use in spite of known MCO prohibiting its use.
         Diagnostic Impression: Alcohol abuse 305.00 and Cannabis abuse
         Recommendation: Administrative Separation

930402:  Battalion NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 112a:
Specification: Did, on or about 930309 to 930318, wrongfully use a controlled substance, to wit: THC evidenced by positive urinalysis.
         Award: Forfeiture of $456.00 pay per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days. Not appealed.

930408:  Applicant provided with Veterans Administration Medical Facility nearest his home of record and a copy of his medical consult for treatment after discharge.

930429:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with the under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse. The factual basis for this recommendation was the Applicant’s non-judicial punishment of April 2, 1993 for wrongful use of marijuana.
930429:  Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult with counsel, elected to waive all rights.

930429:  Commanding Officer, 2d Battalion, 4th Marines, 2d Marine Division, Fleet Marine Force, Camp Lejeune, NC, via the Commanding Officer, 6th Marines, recommended to Commanding General, 2d Marine Division, that the Applicant be discharged under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse. Commanding Officer’s comments: “Retention of the respondent would adversely affect the morale, discipline, and military effectiveness of this organization.”

930519:  Staff Judge Advocate, 2d Marine Division, review determined the case sufficient in law and fact.

 930520:  Commander, 2d Marine Division, FMF, informed the Commandant of the Marine Corps that the Applicant was directed discharged with an under than honorable conditions for misconduct due to drug abuse.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19930527 by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse (A) under other than honorable conditions. 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 Applicant requests a characterization of service upgrade to honorable in order to pursue a career in law enforcement. He admits that he made a youthful mistake and has changed. While the Board respects the Applicant’s claim that he has changed his life, it is worth reminding the Applicant that his record of service was not honorable. There is credible evidence that the Applicant used a controlled substance, which warrants mandatory separation from service. The Applicant records also contain nonjudicial proceedings for violation of UCMJ Article 112a Wrongful use of controlled substance (marijuana), a counseling entry not recommending promotion due to lack of initiative and judgment, and permanent decertification from the Personnel Reliability Program due to a psychological evaluation. These negative aspects served to inform the characterization of under other than honorable conditions, which the Applicant received. The Board recognizes that twelve years has passed since the Applicant was discharged from the Marine Corps; however, the Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment opportunities. Regulations limit the Board’s review to a determination on the propriety and equity of the discharge. An upgrade on this basis is inappropriate and is therefore denied.

The following is provided for the Applicant’s edification. Normally, to permit relief, a procedural impropriety or inequity must have occurred during the discharge process for the period of enlistment in question, but the Board found no such impropriety or inequity. While 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 Marine Corps, the Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge to the extent 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, verifiable employment records, documented community service, certification of non-involvement with civil authorities, and credible evidence of a substance free lifestyle are examples of documentation that should have been provided to receive consideration for relief based on post-service conduct. At this time, the Applicant did not provided any post-service documentation for consideration. No relief is granted on this basis.

The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of discharge. The Applicant can provide documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments or any other evidence related to his discharge at that time. 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 P1900.16D), effective 27 Jun 89 until 17 Aug 95.

B. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part V, Para 502, Propriety .

C. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part V, Para 503, Equity .

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 “ http://Boards.law.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:

                  Secretary of the Navy    Council of Review Boards
                   Attn: Naval Discharge Review Board
                   720 Kennon Street SE Rm 309
                  Washington Navy Yard DC 20374-5023

Similar Decisions

  • USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0500099

    Original file (MD0500099.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. 020919: GCMCA, Commander, Fleet Marine Force, Atlantic, directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse. Mandatory processing for separation is required for Marines who abuse illegal drugs.

  • USMC | DRB | 2001_Marine | MD01-00692

    Original file (MD01-00692.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD01-00692 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010423, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. Documentation Only the service and medical records were reviewed, as the applicant did not provide additional documentation for the Board to consider. 950410: Reduction to E-2 imposed and suspended on 941221 is set aside this date.950410: Reduction to E-3 imposed and suspended on 941128 and...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01968

    Original file (BC-2003-01968.DOC) Auto-classification: Approved

    As a result of the surgery, the Personnel Reliability Program (PRP) certifying official permanently decertified the applicant from PRP duties. A complete copy of the DPPPO evaluation is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant states that the DPSFM advisory confirms that there was no definitive policy or guidance concerning LASIK surgery for Space and Missile Operators. The evidence of record...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01484

    Original file (BC 2014 01484.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01484 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, Block 26, Separation Code, “JHF” and Block 28, Narrative Reason for Separation, “Failure to Complete a Course of Instruction” be corrected to accurately reflect his characterization of service. Only after he completed these final evaluations and...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2010-03242

    Original file (BC-2010-03242.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Squadron Commander advised him that she would be recommending his separation from the Air Force. After thoroughly conducting our independent review of the evidence of record, to include the responses to the applicant’s two separate IG complaints, and noting his contentions, we are not persuaded that he was discharged based on his permanent PRP decertification. Contrary to the applicant’s assertion, the decision to discharge him was based on a force management decision rendered by the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00580-02

    Original file (00580-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Navy Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 May 2002. The Board found that you reenlisted in the Navy on 23 February 1988 for three years. The Board could find no error or injustice in your assigned reenlistment code since you were treated no differently than others discharged under similar circumstances.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC 2012 04176

    Original file (BC 2012 04176.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 16 Apr 10, the applicant’s commander approved the squadron commander’s recommendation. He had several delays in beginning his training due to a DUI, a “disciplinary issue,” and a pending waiver request for an “alcohol problem.” His initial elimination occurred when all officers eliminated from IST were reclassified regardless of the Air Force requirements and prior to the institution of the current Initial Skills Training (IST) Reclassification Panel process. Also, he believes that he...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2006-00561

    Original file (BC-2006-00561.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    On 4 Oct 05, the applicant’s commander notified her via an AF Form 286A, “Notification of Nuclear Weapons Personnel Reliability Program Permanent Decertification/Disqualification Action,” he was concurring with the recommendation of the medical authority to permanently decertify her from the PRP. Air Force Form 418, dated 29 Sep 04, which indicates she was selected for reenlistment just 13 months prior to the AF Form 418 dated 28 Oct 05 denying her reenlistment. After reviewing the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02969

    Original file (BC-2003-02969.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The recommendation further indicated the applicant possessed the skills and abilities necessary to function effectively in the military, his lack of motivation to remain in the Air Force and his perceived lack of support by the military community decreased the probability of effective treatment and increased the severity of symptoms impairing his ability to function. Additionally, he provided no facts warranting a change in his discharge. Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC 2010 02146

    Original file (BC 2010 02146.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at Exhibits C, D, and E. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice regarding the contested EPR. He believes the additional information he provides will show how the nuclear weapons incident on 30 Aug 07 itself solely led to his lower rating in the...