Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2007_Marine | MD0700426
Original file (MD0700426.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
ex-, USMC
MD07-00426
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20070213   Characterization Received:
Narrative Reason: MISCONDUCT              Authority: MARCORSEPMAN PAR 6210.5

 Applicant’s Request:      Characterization change to:
                           Narrative Reason change to:
Applicant’s Issues:       1. Reenlistment opportunities
                           2. Isolated incident
                           3. Other Marines with up to five or six incidents are still on active duty

Decision

 By a vote of the Characterization shall .
 By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall MISCONDUCT

Date: 20 071025                                       Location: Washington D.C.

Discussion

 Issue 1: either which the Board cannot form the basis of relief for the Applicant, or the Board does not have the authority to grant the relief for which the Applicant petitioned. The Applicant is directed to the Addendum regarding .

Issue 2: ( ). The Applicant contends this was an isolated incident and therefore he did not deserve to be discharged. While he may feel that he was unfairly discharged , the record clearly reflects his willful misconduct and demonstrated he was unfit for further service. The evidence of record did not show that the Applicant was either not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions. When a Marine’s service has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service under honorable conditions. 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 one retention warning, the award of one nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) Article 92 (Violate a lawful general regulation by wronglfully ingesting Endust with the intent to induce intoxication, excitement, and/orstupefaction of the central nervous system). Violation of UCMJ Article 92 is considered a serious offense for which a punitive discharge is authorized if adjudged by a Special or General Courts Martial. An upgrade to honorable would be inappropriate.

Issue 3: ( ). The Applicant contends that other Marines ha d up to five or six incidents and were permitted to remain on active duty. 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 he was wrongfully charged and disciplined. The Applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity in this case.

In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of Government affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the Applicant. After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Medical and Service Record Entries , Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, t he Board found tha t


Summary of Service

Prior Service:
 Inactive: USMCR (DEP)     20020716 - 20020730              Active:         
Period of Service Under Review:
 Date of Enlistment: 20020731               Years Contracted : ; Extension:   Date of Discharge: 20040909
Length of Service : 02 Yrs 01 Mths 09 D ys          Lost Time : Days UA: Days Confine d :
Education Level:         Age at Enlistment:       AFQT: 53          MOS: 1341 Highest Rank:
Proficiency/Conduct marks (# of occasions):      4.2 ( 5 ) / 4.0 ( 5 )     Fitness reports :
Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214): RIFLE EXPERT BADGE, SEA SERVICE DEPLOYMENT RIBBON, NATIONAL DEFENSE SERVICE MEDAL

Medical/Service Record Entries Related to Characterization of Service or Basis for Discharge

 20040618 :        NJP -- Viol UCMJ Art. 92 – Violate a lawful general regulation by w rongfully ingesting Endust with the intent to induce intoxication, excitement, and/or stupefaction of the central nervous system .
          Awarded - FOP ($ 500.00 ) for ( 2 months) suspended for 6 months ; RIR ( E-2 ); Restr for ( 60 days).

 20040625 :        MARCORSEPMAN 6105 counseling for violation of a lawful order, specifically, on 20040314 at 2030, you were found wrongfully ingesting Endust with the intent to induce intoxication, excitement, and/or stupefaction of the central nervous system . Recommend processing for Administrative Discharge.

20040628 :        MARCORSEPMAN 6105 counseling for violation of Article 92-Failure to obey order or regulation, specifically, on or about 2030 on 20040314 at Brks 5703 Rm 347 you did violate a general regulation by wrongfully ingesting Endust with the intent to induce intoxication, excitement, and/or stupefaction of the central nervous system. .
Discharge Process

 Date Notified:   20040728
Basis for Discharge:      DUE TO:
        
Least Favorable Characterization:       
Commanding Officer’s Intended Recommendation:   

Date Applicant Responded to Notification:                  20040720
Rights Elected at Notification:
         Consult with Counsel                      
         Obtain Copies of Documents               
         Submit Statement(s) (date)                        
         Administrative Board                      

Commanding Officer Recommendation (date):        ( 20040803 )
SJA review (date):       ( 20040810 )
Separation Authority (date):     COMMANDING GENERAL, 3D FORCE SERVICE SUPPORT GROUP ( 20040816 )
Basis for discharge directed:   DUE TO:
Characterization directed:     
Date Applicant Discharged:       20040909








Types of Documents Submitted by Applicant and Considered By Board

 Related to Military Service:      Service and/or Medical Record:            Other Records:

Related to Post-Service Period:         
         Employment:                        Finances:                          Education:               
         Health/Medical Records:                   Substance Abuse:                           Criminal Records:       
         Family/Personal Status:                   Community Service:                References:              
        
Additional Statements From Applicant:    From Representative:
Other Documentation (Describe)

Pertinent Regulation/Law

 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 II, Para 211, Regularity of Government Affairs , Part V, Para 502, Propriety and Para 503, Equity .

C. The Manual for Courts-Martial authorizes the award of a punitive discharge if adjudged as part of the sentence upon conviction by a special or general court-martial for violation of the UCMJ, Article 92.


ADDENDUM: Information for the Applicant

 Complaint Procedures : 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 Instruction 1332.28, you may submit a complaint in accordance with Enclosure (5) of that Instruction to the Joint Service Review Activity , OUSD (P&R) PI-LP , The Pentagon , Washington, DC 20301-4000 . You should read Enclosure (5) of the Instruction 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 Instruction 1332.28 and other Decisional Documents by going online at “ http://Boards.law.af.mil . ”

Additional Reviews : Subsequent to a document review, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provi ded the 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 additional evidence related to this discharge. Representation at a personal appearance hearing is recommended but not required. If a former member has been discharged for more than 15 years , has already been grante d a personal appearance hearing or has otherwise exhausted his opportunities before the NDRB, the Applicant may petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR), 2 Navy Annex, Washington, DC 20370-5100 for further review.

 Service Benefits: The Veterans Administration determines eligibility for post-service benefits, not the Naval Discharge Review Board. There is no requirement or law that grants recharacterization solely on the issue of obtaining Veterans' benefits and this issue does not serve to provide a foundation upon which the Board can grant relief.
Employmen t / Educational Opportunities : The Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment or educational opportunities. Regulations limit the Board’s review to a determination of the propriety and equity of the discharge.

Reenlistment/RE-code: Since the NDRB has no jurisdiction over reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Navy, Marine Corps, or any other of the Armed Forces, the NDRB is not authorized to change a reenlistment code. Only the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) can make changes to reenlistment codes. Additionally, the Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities. An unfavorable “RE” code is, in itself, not a bar to reenlistment. A request for a waiver can be submitted during the processing of a formal application for reenlistment through a recruiter.
Medical Conditions and Misconduct : DoD disability regulations do not preclude a disciplinary separation. Appropriate regulations stipulate that separations for misconduct take precedence over potential separations for other reasons. Whenever a member is being processed through the Physical Evaluation Board, and subsequently is processed for an administrative involuntary separation for misconduct, the disability evaluation is suspended. The Physical Evaluation Board case remains in suspense pending the outcome of the non-disability proceedings. If the action includes either a punitive or administrative discharge for misconduct, the medical board report is filed in the member’s terminated health record. Additionally, the NDRB does not have the authority to change a narrative reason for separation to one indicating a medical disability or “PTSD . ” Only the Board for Correction of Naval Records can grant this type of narrative reason change.

Automatic Upgrades - 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 Naval service. The NDRB 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. Examples of documentation that may be provided to the Board include proof of educational pursuits, verifiable employment records, documentation of community service, credible evidence of a substance free lifestyle and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities.

Issues Concerning Bad-Conduct Discharges (BCD ) – Because relevant and material facts stated in a court-martial specification are presumed by the NDRB to be established facts, issues relating to the Applicant’s innocence of charges for which he was found guilty cannot form a basis for relief. With respect to a discharge adjudged by a court-martial, the action of the NDRB is restricted to upgrades based on clemency. Clemency is an act of leniency that reduces the severity of the punishment imposed.

Board Membership: 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

  • NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1300676

    Original file (ND1300676.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Additionally, administrative discharge processing is a separate and distinct process from punitive proceedings such as NJP. Relief denied.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entries, and discharge process, the Board found Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall and the narrative reason for separation shall remain .The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing for a period of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0902115

    Original file (ND0902115.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The NDRB has no jurisdiction over reenlistment, reentry or reinstatement into the Navy, Marine Corps or any other of the Armed Forces, and is not authorized to change a reenlistment code.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entriesand discharge process, the Board found Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall and the narrative reason for separation shall remain . ” Additional Reviews : After a...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1100756

    Original file (ND1100756.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Representation: NONE By a vote of the Characterization shall .By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall .Discussion The NDRB, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge, is authorized to change the character of service and the reason for discharge if such change is warranted.In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include...

  • USMC | DRB | 2013_Marine | MD1300404

    Original file (MD1300404.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. However, the Applicant in no way warranted the hazing he received while on active duty, but the NDRB determined he was given mitigation for his misconduct by the Separation Authority when he determined to discharge the Applicant with a General characterization of service. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1301616

    Original file (ND1301616.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Representation: By a vote of the Characterization shall .By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall .Discussion The NDRB, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge, is authorized to change the character of service and the reason for discharge if such change is warranted.In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1301612

    Original file (ND1301612.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board determined the characterization of service received was appropriate considering the length of service and UCMJ violations. Relief denied.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entries, and discharge process, the Board found Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall and the narrative reason for separation shall remain .The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing for 15...

  • USMC | DRB | 2014_Marine | MD1400970

    Original file (MD1400970.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The notification letter specifically states, “The factual basis for the recommendation of drug abuse is your wrongful possession of designer drug ‘Spice’ on or about 3 June 2010.” The record clearly shows the Applicant exercised his right to counsel and waived his rights to submit a written statement and request an administrative board. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application...

  • USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1002314

    Original file (MD1002314.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Types of Documents Submitted/reviewedRelated to Military Service: DD 214:Service/Medical Record:Other Records: Related to Post-Service Period: Employment: Finances: Education/Training: Health/Medical Records: Rehabilitation/Treatment: Criminal Records: Personal Documentation: Community Service: References: Department of VA letter: Other Documentation: Additional Statements:From Applicant: From/To Representation:From/ToCongress member: Pertinent Regulation/Law A. Paragraph 1105, DISCHARGE...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1101434

    Original file (ND1101434.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT Applicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant contends Spice was not illegal to be sold in retail at the time of his discharge. By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall .Discussion The NDRB, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge, is authorized to change the character of service and the reason for discharge if such change is warranted.In reviewing discharges,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1000586

    Original file (ND1000586.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 08 April 2009, the Separation Authority approved the Command’s recommendation for discharge and designated that the basis for separation would be Misconduct (Commission of a Serious Offense), having determined that the evidence of record supported the discharge and that the characterization of service as recommended, was warranted. The Separation Authority reviewed the evidence of record and the gravity of the charges and directed the Applicant be discharged for Misconduct (Commission of...