Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0501314
Original file (MD0501314.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. MD05-01314

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20050727. The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable or general (under honorable conditions). The Applicant requests a personal appearance discharge review before a traveling panel closest to Chicago, IL. The Applicant did not designate a representative on the DD Form 293. In the acknowledgement letter, the Applicant was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) does not travel; all hearings are held in the Washington DC at the Washington Navy Yard. The NDRB also advised that the Board first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20060413. 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:

“Issue 1: My unit was overseas and there was no one available to speak on my behalf.

Issue 2: A few charge sheets have the wrong social security numbers.

Issue 3: Due to my high pros & cons even after my NJP I would have still received a Horn able discharged.

Issue 4: My other than honorable discharge in my view was unfair. This decision does not reflect my 3 years and 9 months I served as a marine [sic], I served in Operation Iraq freedom, very well behaved marine [sic], and I was very highly motivated.”
Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Three pages from Applicant’s service record

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USMCR (DEP)    19990831 - 20000820      COG
         Active: None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 20000821             Date of Discharge: 20040520

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

 Active: 03 09 00
          Inactive: None

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

 Age at Entry: 18

 Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 12                                 AFQT: 43

 Highest Rank: LCPL                         MOS: 0621

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Proficiency: 4.2 (8)                                Conduct: 4.1 (8)

 Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, (as stated on the DD Form 214): NATO Medal, Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, Sea Service Deployment Ribbon, National Defense Service Medal, Meritorious Unit Commendation, Presidential Unit Citation, Rifle Qualification Badge (Expert), Pistol Qualification Badge (Sharpshooter)


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 :

020608:  Counseling: Advised of deficiencies in performance and conduct (Unauthorized absence from appointed place of duty on 18 May 2002.), necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.

020609:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: In that LCpl M_(Applicant), did on or about 0730, 18 May 2002, without authority absent himself from his appointed place of duty, to wit: HP 250.
         Award: Forfeiture of $304 per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duty for 14 days. Not appealed.

031212:  NAVDRUGLAB, Jacksonville, FL, reported Applicant’s urine sample, received 031209, tested positive for THC.

040113:  Commanding Officer, Headquarters and Service Company, 2d Battalion, 2d Marines, recommended Applicant be separated from the Marine Corps.

040121:  Counseling: Advised of deficiencies in performance and conduct (Illegal drugs involvement, to wit: marijuana usage), necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, and advised being processed for administrative discharge action.
040123:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 112a: SNM, at a unknown location, on or about 23 Dec 03, wrongfully used a illegal substance to wit: marijuana.
         Award: Not found in service record.

040206:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse. Applicant informed the least favorable character of service possible was under other than honorable conditions.

040206:  Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult with counsel, elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge Board.
040212:  Applicant signed statement of understanding for substance abuse at Veterans Administration Medical Center.
040217:  Substance abuse evaluation: No diagnosis. Recommendations: Outpatient treatment, remain abstinent from use of all substances.
040422:  An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence and by unanimous vote, found that the Applicant had committed misconduct, that such misconduct warranted separation, and recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions.

040226:  Commanding Officer, 2d Battalion, 2d Marines, recommended Applicant’s discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse. The factual basis for this recommendation was respondent’s illegal drug use as evidence by Navy Drug Lab message 121127Z Dec 03. Commanding Officer’s comments: “I have personally interviewed Private First Class M_(Applicant) and although he shows remorse for his actions the Marine Corps policy on the issue is very clear. Private First Class M_(Applicant) performance is best defined as inconsistent, however, since testing positive for THC he requires constant supervision. Based upon the information contained in the enclosures I recommend that the respondent be administratively separated from the Marine Corps with an under other than honorable characterization of service. Retention of the respondent would adversely affect the morale, discipline, and military effectiveness of this organization. ”

040506:  SJA review determined the case sufficient in law and fact.

040507:  GCMCA, Commander, 2d Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary Force, 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 20040520 by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse (A) with a service characterization of 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 Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (D).

 Issues 3, 4. Despite a servicemember’s prior record of service, certain serious offenses, even though isolated, warrant separation from the naval service in order to maintain proper order and discipline. An under other than honorable conditions discharge is warranted when significant negative aspects of a member’s conduct or performance of duty outweigh the positive aspects of the member’s military record. The Applicant’s service was marred by nonjudicial punishment proceedings for violations of Articles 86 and 112a of the UCMJ. 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 contract with the U.S. Marine Corps and falls far short of that required for an upgrade of his characterization of service. Relief is not warranted.

Issue 1. The Applicant contends that his unit was overseas and that there was no one available to “speak on his behalf.” The government enjoys a presumption of regularity in the conduct of its affairs. The Applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support his issue. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the Applicant produced any evidence, to support the contention that his administrative separation, to include his administrative discharge board, was improper or inequitable. The Applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity in this case. However, even if the Applicant could show that his command was unavailable to participate in his Administrative Discharge Board proceedings, it would neither amount to a justification nor to a defense for the Applicant’s own misconduct. Relief denied.

Issue 2. The Applicant states, “A few charge sheets have the wrong social security numbers.” Because the Applicant did not identify this issue as an issue of propriety, the Board evaluated the Applicant’s issue on the merits of equity and found the Applicant’s issue without merit. The Applicant was discharged by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse. The Applicant was awarded nonjudicial punishment for violating Article 112a of the UCMJ. Mandatory processing for separation is required for Marines who abuse illegal drugs. 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 remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of discharge. Representation at a personal appearance hearing is recommended but not required.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A. The Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16F, effective
01 Sep 2001 until Present, Paragraph 6210, MISCONDUCT.
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 .

D. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part II, Para 211, Regularity of Government Affairs .

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 | MD0501573

    Original file (MD0501573.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In the acknowledgement letter, the Applicant was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. Mercer County Veteran Services” Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Thirteen pages from applicant’s service record Applicant’s DD Form 214 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type...

  • USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0600473

    Original file (MD0600473.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Now I ask that the country I love honor my service with an Honorable Discharge from the United States Marine Corps. PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: USMCR (DEP) 20010216 - 20011126 COG Active: None Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 20011127 Date of Discharge: 20031121 Length of...

  • USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0501498

    Original file (MD0501498.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant’s DD Form 214 (Member 4) PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: USMCR (DEP) 20030331 – 20030427 COG Active: None Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 20030428 Date of Discharge: 20050128 Length of Service (years, months, days):Active: 01 09 00 (Does not include lost time.) ...

  • USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0600174

    Original file (MD0600174.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The member has not received any received any pain relief or increase in physical endurance despite eighteen months of rehabilitation while on a limited duty board. 011106: Applicant’s counsel, Capt M. A. C_, USMC, submits letter of deficiency in the Administrative Discharge Board to Commanding General, 2d Force Service Support Group, alleging that the Board improperly admitted into evidence and considered “Counseling Sheets” over counsel’s objection in violation of the Marine Corps’...

  • USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0600508

    Original file (MD0600508.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The cigar contained the marijuana that the Cpl had purchased, but me being the driver was charged with possession. 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 states, “I request that my characterization of discharge be changed to honorable because I believe that I served honorably in the Marine Corps, also there were several injustices that have...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004 Marine | MD04-01474

    Original file (MD04-01474.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. I hereby sincerely request that my discharge be changes to a general under honorable conditions.I truly regret the mistakes I made during my service in the Marine Corps. At this time, the applicant has not provided sufficient documentation of post service character and conduct to mitigate the misconduct that resulted in his characterization of discharge.

  • USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0600027

    Original file (MD0600027.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant informed that if she is separated with a characterization of service as under other than honorable conditions, she will be administratively reduced to pay grade E-3 upon separation.040527: Applicant acknowledged understanding of supplemental notification of separation proceedings.040713: 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 such misconduct...

  • USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0501532

    Original file (MD0501532.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service and medical records, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant’s DD Form 214 Two pages from Applicant’s service record PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: USMCR (DEP) 19980630 - 19980809 COG Active: None Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 19980810 Date of Discharge: 20020522 Length of Service (years, months,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600109

    Original file (ND0600109.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. Chief S_ (Applicant) has been provided written advice concerning the Purpose and Scope of the Navy Discharge Review Board and the Board for Correction of Naval Records.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600439

    Original file (ND0600439.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND06-00439 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20060201. Neither the evidence of record, nor the documentation provided by the Applicant, demonstrate that the Applicant referred himself to treatment for illegal substance abuse. The Board found the Applicant’s summary court-martial conviction for illegal substance abuse sufficient misconduct to warrant an under other than honorable conditions characterization.