Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0600472
Original file (MD0600472.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-Pvt, USMC
Docket No. MD06-00472

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20060210. The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions). The Applicant requests a personal appearance hearing discharge review before the Board in the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan area. The Applicant did not designate a representative on the DD Form 293.

 Decision

A personal appearance hearing discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20061106 . After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board’s vote was unanimous that the discharge shall change to: GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS) /MISCONDUCT-DRUG ABUSE (ADMINISTRATIVE DISCHARGE BOARD REQUIRED BUT WAIVED ) , authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 621 0.5 , Separation Code “ HKK1 . ”



THIS IS THE CORRECT SHELL FOR DRUG ABUSE, EFFECTIVE 27 Jun 89 until 30 Jun 94.

The finding for Misconduct is effective 27 Jun 89 until 17 Aug 95, however, the Commandant of the Marine Corps issued an official list of the new DoD SPD codes and narrative reasons for separation on 940701.

SPD CODE NARRATIVE REASON FOR SEPARATION
(SPD Codes are listed on page 1-55 of MCO P1900.16D, effective 27 Jun 89 until 1 Jul 94. The only change from MCO P1900.16C is: “administrative” vice “admin”)


SPD               Reason on DD214                    English Description

GKK1              MISCONDUCT                         Drug abuse (board)
HKK1              MISCONDUCT                         Drug abuse (board waived)
JKK1              MISCONDUCT                         Drug abuse (no board)

Characterization of service is written “HONORABLE”, “UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL)” or “UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS”(See page 1-33 of MCO P1900.16D, effective 27 Jun 89)

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated


Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application and an attached document/letter to the Board:

 “t o dispute and clarify issues & findings in the original review of records Docket # MD95-0020.
Post service factors that warrant clemenc y/reconsideration of discharge.

Dear Navel Discharge Review Board,

I would like to begin this letter by thanking the board for giving me the opportunity to petition you for an upgrade of my “under other than honorable” discharge I received from the U.S. Marine Corps on 1993/05/03. I am petitioning the board for my discharge to be upgraded to “general under honorable conditions”. I respectfully request this upgrade based on two issues:
1) To clarify and dispute issues and findings of the original review board (Docket #MD95-0020)
2) Post service factors that warrant clemency/reconsideration of discharge.

Since I will be presenting myself to the board in person I will be brief in this letter, and just highlight the relevant issues that I would like to discuss in greater detail with the board at the time of the hearing. First, I would like to give a brief summery of who I am and where I come from to give the board an understanding of the depth of respect and duty I feel towards the military in general. Next, I will address the issues and findings from the first (written) application for upgrading my discharge that I believe were incorrect. Lastly, I will talk of the post service factors that I believe should be considered during the review. I will start by discussing who I am and my commitment to the U.S. Military.

 I believe who I am today is a sum total of my life experiences and the people that helped raise me. My family is a military family, it is in our blood. I had family on both sides of the civil war. On my mothers side of the family my great grandfather fought in WWI, my grandfather served and was decorated in the 4 th armored division of the 3 rd army A company in the 25 th mechanized recognizance unit under Gen. Patton in France during WW II , also two great uncles that served in Korea. My fathers side of the family is the same way. My great grandfather, my grandfather, and my father were all in the Navy. My grandfather was in WWII in the Pacific, and my father served 8 years in the Navy submarine fleet during Vietnam. My stepfather was an Army Ranger in Vietnam, and I have a first cousin who is currently a TAC-P in the Air Force who just returned from Iraq. Except for Desert Storm my family has served this country with distinction in every major conflict from the civil war through today. I tell you this not to curry favor in any way, but to give you a sense of the way the military is thought of in my family. Also, I tell you this so maybe the board can have an appreciation of what I went through (brought on by my actions for which I am totally responsible) being the first to not serve with distinction. I am so glad that many of the great warriors in my family that I have spoke of had passed by the time of my service, and did not share in the shame that my failure in the institutions that they held so dear caused. I can tell the board from personal experience that a man with honor and pride never learns to deal with shame and failure. I struggle with this still on a daily basis. As a small child I remember being totally overcome with fascination and wonder when my grandfather would talk of his trek through France in the winter of 1944. He very rarely would ever talk of those times (as true warriors don’t brag), but on the occasions he did I was overcome with the look of pride and accomplishment, duty and honor that would emanate from his eyes. I knew by the age of 7 that this is what I wanted too. I wanted to feel that kind of pride and sense of accomplishment. I wanted to serve my country and be a U.S. Marine. From that day on my course was set. No college for me, just Marines. There in lies the daily struggle, I had my dream and lost it. Not because of a lack intelligence, physical abilities, or the mental demands of training, but I lost my dream because of a lack of self discipline. I should be in Iraq fighting the terrorists with my brothers in arms, representing my family in the honorable way my ancestors did. I have two sons (6 and 2), and the 6 year old already wants to be a Navy Seal and help his uncle fight the “bad people” in Iraq. I will always encourage him with his military aspirations. Someday, I will have to tell him about my experience with the military, and this is not a day I look forward to. I am hoping that the results of this review might allow me the ability to say to him that even though I made mistakes I overcame and it was recognized. There was one thing I was taught in the Marines that I disagree with, “never say you are sorry, it is a sign of weakness”. I believe that sometimes an apology is in order, so I would like to apologize to all that read this letter. I let my country, my Marine Corps, my family, and myself down, and for this I am truly sorry.
Now I would like to address the issues and findings in the original (written) application that I wanted to dispute or correct. Although these might be minor details, and I do not know how much weight was given these details in the process of the board reaching its decision, I feel compelled to get on the record my disagreements. While making these disagreements I ask the Boards understanding that I am working from memory about an incident that was 14 years ago, and I am sure the board has a more complete SRB than I do. If I am mistaken about my disagreements please understand that there is no deception intended, and I look forward to discussing these issues at the hearing. First in the summary of service it says on 930323 I “revealed a history of daily marijuana use for a five year period prior to enlistment”. I would take great exception to this. I was a teenage high school student without the means to support a habit such as that. I can find no where on any evaluations where this was said. In the report from C.J. H_ there is a statement from the doctor that says “almost daily” which I do not ever remember saying, because it was usually weekend recreational usage. But it went from “almost daily” in the doctors report to “daily” in the summary of service. The truth is that it was not a daily or almost daily problem, it was much more sporadic than that. I am not saying that on occasions over a weekend I might have not used pot on back to back days, but to suggest it was a everyday occurrence for five years is not accurate. I come from a middle-class hard working family without the means to support that kind of habit. Second, in the same summary finding the board (based on the same report from C.J. H_) said I told the counselor that I had used pot one to two times per week since enlistment. This is completely false. One, it is a physical impossibility to smoke pot in Marine recruit training or at MCT at Camp LeJune with took up almost 1/2 of my term of enlistment. I never told anyone this and would challenge anyone to prove otherwise, because it is false. I smoked pot while enlisted a total of 3 times. Once over the thanksgiving holidays in 1992 (for which I was not caught, and to my knowledge this is the first time I have admitted this to anyone affiliated with the military). The second time was over the Christmas/ New Year Holidays in 1992-1993 which resulted in the first failed urinalysis test. The third and final time was over a long weekend at the beginning of February, which resulted in the second failed urinalysis. All three of these occasions were a result of my visiting home. I was from Greenville, MS which was a 2 ½ hour drive from my duty station, and as I said in my sworn statement was never done with any other Marine nor did I ever use or possess any illegal drug on a military installation. Lastly, I would like to clarify an impression that it seemed the board got from my original request letter. In the Decisional issues response of the board they note quite forcefully that I claimed it was an isolated incident, and the board goes to lengths to show it was not isolated. They point out that I failed two urinalysis tests more than 30 days apart, therefore I had used pot more than once. They actually use the words “repeatedly” and reference a statement made to medical authorities. I can find no statement to that effect, and believe they are referencing the findings I was addressing previously. I do not have a copy of the original letter I sent, but the board seemed to get the impression I was trying to be dishonest or minimize the issue by referring to it as “isolated”. That was not my intention. As stated earlier in this letter, I fully believe the board has a more complete documentation than I do, and I would have been beyond stupid to try and suggest it only happened once when I knew they were looking at all my records. It was probably a poor choice of words, but there was no intention to mislead. I would like to address the “why” of what I did and say a few words on the medical diagnosis. Why did I do this? I have asked myself that so many times. The best answer I can come up with is: because I thought I could get away with it. Self destructive behavior is not logical, so it is very difficult even now 14 years later for me explain logically why I did what I did. No explanation really makes sense. I feel that if I had not requested a duty station close to home that my discharge and subsequent appeals (hearings) would have never happened. As I said in my sworn statement where I described the two incidents, I was hanging around old “friends” and drinking. When the temptation presented itself I was not man enough to walk away. I will live with that forever. This leads me to the doctor’s diagnosis of psychological dependancy. I feel that is just a way to excuse bad behavior, and give someone an excuse so as not to take responsibility for their actions (I can’t help it). To me this is nonsense. I could have helped it. I could have gotten my butt up and walked away, or at the minimum not gone back around people that I knew would probably tempt me. It was a lapse in character, judgment, and discipline that allowed me to do what I did, not some addiction or dependancy that I had no control over. I had control, I just did not exercise it. I hope the board does not see this as me somehow trying to deny or distort reality. My point is that I did it, and it was my fault, and there is no one or any condition to blame for my actions but me. This brings me to what I have done with my life since my discharge.
I would first like to say thank you to the Marine Corps for standing up to me, and teaching me that I can not always wiggle my way out of the consequences for my actions. This I would say was the biggest difference that being discharged made for me. My whole life to that point I had felt I could outsmart or manipulate my way out of consequences for my actions. This was a real wake up call. After discharge, I went home totally clueless as to what my future would hold. Remember, I had wanted to be a Marine my whole life. Now I found myself floundering with no purpose. I started working at S_ - W_ Co. the August after my discharge, and I am still employed with them now. I started Delta State University a year later, and completed my degree in Business Administration in December of 1998. While in school I was married and working three part time jobs to support myself and my new wife. S_ - W_ , S_ , and K_ grocery store were how I made ends meet. I worked 60 hours a week and went to school full time. This was because after leaving the Marine Corps my family told me I was on my own. Which was the right thing to do, it forced me to step up to the plate and get my life back in order. While in school my wife divorced me, and about a year later I met my current wife in 1997 and also moved from part-time to full time with S_ - W_ . Upon completing my degree I entered the Management Training Program for S_ - W_ and became an assistant manager in December of 1998. From there I was promoted to my current position as Store Manager in April, 2001. I have managed a store for 5 years now, and will be starting on my masters degree in 2007. I have worked in 5 different S_ - W_ stores during my climb to my current position. I have included my most recent performance evaluation to illustrate the success I have become. In 1999 I lectured students at the St. Joseph High School about the problems drugs can cause in a persons life. I coach a youth soccer team, and I am actively involved in the Batesville First United Methodist Church. I have been drug free for over 14 years, and have been in absolutely no trouble with any legal authorities. I live a boring life compared to my dream, but my family and my faith in God make it a wonderful life. I volunteer every year at the local Job Corps Center to give a presentation on how to fill out job applications and successfully have a job interview. I have lived a clean and successful life, and I am well respected in my community as a business leader.

I have often asked myself how I could make up for past wrongs, and do I deserve an upgrade in my discharge. I guess the most straight forward answer is “no” you did the crime and knew the potential consequences and you did it anyway. However, the board does offer people such as me the opportunity to demonstrate that they can be a productive member of society, and earn some level of relief. Based on the criteria laid out in the conclusions of the board from my first written application for review (educational pursuits, employment history, and contributing to society) I have done the best I could. No, I do not have my masters degree yet (trying to get my wife out of school first), and I am not planning on writing a thesis to attain a doctorate degree but I have received my B.S. Degree, I am working at the same place since 3 months after discharge, and I am active in my community. I hope the board will see fit after the hearing to grant me some amount of relief. I would love to be able someday to tell my son that I found a way to redeem a little of the dignity I gave away. I live everyday wishing I could change the past. However, there is no sulking, no bitterness, and no excuses. I am a success and regardless of the outcome of these hearings I will persevere with my head held high. I am a survivor and a fighter, and I will continue to grow as a man, father, and a proud Marine. Thank you for your time.”

[signed] R_ B_ (Applicant)]
Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Letter from Applicant’s mot her M_ E. C_, dtd December 27, 2 005
Performance Appraisal , effective date March 20, 2005 (7 pgs)
Bachelor of Business Administration Degree from Delta State University , dtd May 8, 1999
Letter from W_ C_, Junior High Principal, S t . Joseph High School , January 6, 1999
Request for Information and Documentation , dtd March 10, 2006
Photograph of Applicant and youth soccer team, undated

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USMCR (DEP)    19920407 – 19920511               COG
         Active: None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 19920512             Date of Discharge: 19930503

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

 Active: 00 11 22
          Inactive: None

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

 Age at Entry: 20

 Years Contracted: 5

 Education Level: 12                                 AFQT: 78

 Highest Rank: PFC                                   MOS: 6300

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Proficiency: 3.7 (3)                                Conduct: 3.7 (3)

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


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 :

920406:  Applicant briefed on and certified understanding of Marine Corps policy concerning illegal use of drugs.

 920407:  Moral waiver granted by Commanding Officer, USMC Recruiting Station Montgomery, AL.

 930212:  NAVDRUGLAB, Great Lakes, IL reported Applicant’s urine sample, received 930 205 , tested positive for [THC].
930222:  Counseling: Advised of deficiencies in performance and conduct (illegal use of marijuana.), necessar y corrective actions explained and sources of assistance provided.

930303:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 112a: On or about 93011 2, did wrongfully use marijuana.
 Award: Forfeiture of $175.00 per month for 2 months, reduction to E-1. Not appealed.
930305:  Counseling and Assistance Center, NAS Memphis preliminary screening and recommendation letter. Determination: Poor judgment in use. No action required; recommend 12-step meeting s (AA) for 2 months.
930309:  NAVDRUGLAB, Great Lakes, IL reported Applicant’s urine sample, received 930301, tested positive for [THC].

 930309:  Branch Clinic, Naval Hospital , TN. Applicant evaluated by Counseling and Assistance Center and medical officer. (Applicant) reported positive urinalysis was in error and he has not used marijuana since enlisting in Marines. Positive THC use [unreadable] age 15-17. Diagnosed THC use/not dependant. No medical therapy indicated.

930315:  Applicant’s statement. “... On 1 January 1993 I committed my first offense of the illegal use of marijuana... On 14 March 1993 I committed my second offense of the illegal use of marijuana (THC)... ”

930315:  Counseling: Advised of deficiencies in performance and conduct (illegal drug abuse). Applicant advised being recommended for administrative separation.

930315:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse. The factual basis for this recommendation was positive test results for THC obtained from two separate urinalysis exams, subsequent nonjudicial punishment conviction for violation of Article 112a, UCMJ and admission to drug abuse. Applicant informed the least favorable character of service possible is under other than honorable conditions.

930315:  Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult with counsel, elected to waive all rights except the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation.

 930315:  Counseling and Assistance Center, NAS Memphis preliminary screening and recommendation letter. Determination: Psychologically dependant. Recommendation: CAAC Level II if retained, separation from military service and one 12-step meeting s per week.

93031 5 :  Applicant acknowledge counseling concerning availability of drug abuse treatment at a VA facility nearest his home of record.
930316:  Branch Clinic, Naval Hospital, TN. Applicant re-evaluated for drug dependence. Applicant returned with request for treatment per dependence on THC. Reports use of THC 5-6 times since Marine service (10 months). Reports prior [unreadable] use of about 1 joint/day. 5-6 times Found psychologically dependent on marijuana. Recommended for treatment Level III treatment through VA system. Diagnosis changed based upon new information relayed by patient.
930323:  Report of Applicant’s assessment for drug dependence. Applicant revealed a history of almost daily marijuana use f rom 1987 to 1992( prior to enlistment ) . Marijuana use after enlistment one to two times per week. Appears to be psychologically dependent and should be considered for separation via the VA.
930325:  Commanding Officer, Headquarters and Headquarters Squadron 90 , recommended Applicant’s discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse. Commanding Officer’s comments: “As evidenced by enclosure (2) through (8), Private B_(Applicant) merits consideration for administrative separation. On 12 January 1993, a random drug screening was conducted and Private B_(Applicant)’s urine sample tested positive for THC. On 3 March 1993, he received nonjudicial punishment for violation of Article 112A, UCMJ. As a result of this illicit drug use, Private B_ (Applicant) was medically evaluated on 9 March 1993 by Lieutenant Commander D. S_, MC USNR and diagnosed as drug abusive. On 19 February 1993, a random drug screening was conducted and again Private B_(Applicant)’s urine sample tested positive for THC. As a result of this continued illicit drug use, Private B_ was medically re-evaluated on 16 March 1993 by Lieutenant Commander D. S_, MC USNR, and diagnosed as psychologically drug dependent. This illegal and abusive drug use indicates to me that Private B_ (Applicant) has neither the desire nor the strict discipline necessary to be a Marine. As evidence by enclosure (7), Private B_(Applicant) received enlistment waiver code of MGD, preservice illegal use of drugs. While his preservice conduct was not considered in my decision to recommend him for administrative separation. Private B_(Applicant) significant history of drug abuse was noted. Private B_(Applicant) has no future value to the Marine Corps. His use of illegal drug has rendered his unreliable and unfit for continued duty. Further, his continue presence in a military environment will seriously impair combat readiness, efficiency, and unit morale. As evidenced by enclosure (9), Private B_(Applicant) has been advised of available Veterans Administration (VA) Medical Treatment after separation per reference (b). Based on the above, I recommend he be separated with a discharge under other than honorable conditions. ”

93 0423:  GCMCA, Commanding General directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse .

950417:  NDRB documentary record review Docket Number MD95-00200 conducted. Determination: discharge proper and equitable; relief not warranted.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19930503 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 th i s case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable at the time of issuance (B and C). However, the Board found the Applicant merited relief based on post-service equity.

In his testimony before the Board, the Applicant requested that his character of service be changed based on post-service equity. The Board found that the Applicant’s post-service conduct was sufficiently creditable to warrant an upgrade of his characterization of service to general (under honorable conditions). The Applicant’s dedication to his family, career progression, volunteer activities and educational accomplishments demonstrated that his drug use during service did not reflect his overall character. However, the Board found that the Applicant’s post-service conduct does not sufficiently mitigate his misconduct to warrant full relief in the form of an honorable discharge. Therefore, the Board voted to change the Applicant’s character of service to the character of service requested by the Applicant on his DD Form 293, general (under honorable conditions). Relief granted.

The following is provided for the edification of the Applicant. The Applicant has exhausted his opportunities for review by the NDRB. The Applicant may, however, petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR), 2 Navy Annex, Washington, DC 20370-5100, concerning a change in the characterization of naval service, if he desires further review of his case.

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 | 2006_Marine | MD0600287

    Original file (MD0600287.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD06-00287 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20051129. After I returned home, I was severely depressed for several months. Commanding Officer’s comments: “After considering all the evidence, I request that this Marine be discharged from the Marine Corps.

  • USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0600527

    Original file (MD0600527.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions). My record of promotions showed I was generally a good service member. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 19970521 by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse (A) with a service characterization of under other than honorable conditions.

  • USMC | DRB | 2001_Marine | MD01-00985

    Original file (MD01-00985.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD01-00985 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010725, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. Now, at 26 yrs old I want to raise my girls up in the country with a farm, and more importantly teach them to keep faith in God, to be Proud of there family and to Honor there Country. However, the NDRB is authorized to consider outstanding post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge, to the extent...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004 Marine | MD04-01148

    Original file (MD04-01148.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    They always tell you in boot camp that “Once a Marine, always a Marine”, but as soon as an individual makes one stupid mistake, that’s it, no second chances and that to me does not justify the saying. The Veterans Administration determines eligibility for post-service benefits not the Navy Discharge Review Board. The Board found no indication in the record or in the documents submitted by the Applicant that the Applicant was denied his proper due process.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-01408

    Original file (ND04-01408.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND04-01408 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20040908. 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.. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Character Reference Letter from D_ S_ (2 pages) Character Reference Letter from H_...

  • USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0501420

    Original file (MD0501420.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions). After I told the men in my command that I had taken the drugs. The NDRB advises that there was no impropriety in his administrative separation for misconduct due to drug abuse, despite the evidence of record showing that the Applicant’s test result came back negative for controlled substances.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00937

    Original file (ND04-00937.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT ex-AR, USN Docket No. ND04-00937 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20040520. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions, entry level separation or uncharacterized.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004 Marine | MD04-01393

    Original file (MD04-01393.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Marine!! As of this time, the Applicant has not provided any documentation for the Board to consider.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00757

    Original file (ND02-00757.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It was LT R_'s first time giving a urinalysis test of this magnitude and also the first time on the ship. 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).Issue 1: The Applicant states his character is demonstrated by his outstanding and documented excellence award and quick promotion to Petty Officer third class. However, the NDRB is authorized to consider...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-01008

    Original file (ND00-01008.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND00-01008 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 000829, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under 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 (C and D).The Board found that the applicant served one year and 2 months in the Navy. At this time, the applicant has not...