Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2007_Marine | MD0701228
Original file (MD0701228.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-, USMC
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20070808
Characterization of Service Received:
Narrative Reason for Discharge: DUE TO A PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT
Authority for Discharge: MARCORSEPMAN 6210.5

Applicant’s Request:     Characterization change to:
                           Narrative Reason change to: MEDICAL

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
 Inactive: USMCR (DEP)     19980630 - 19980909              Active:         
Period of Service Under Review:
 Date of Enlistment: 19980910               Period of enlistment : Years Months             Date of Discharge: 20020403
Length of Service : Yrs Mths 24 D ys      Education Level:         Age at Enlistment:       AFQT: 68
MOS: 0842 Highest Rank:                                    Fitness reports:
Proficiency/Conduct marks (# of occasions):      4.3 ( 9 )/ 4.1 ( 9 )
 Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214): Rifle Pistol

Periods of UA / CONF :

NJPs :    
         19990802 : Art(s) 134 (altering ID card ) . Awarded - . Susp - .
         20020325 : Art(s) 86 . Awarded - . Susp - .

Civil Conviction:
         DUI

Retention Warnings: .
         19990325 : For underage drinking .
         20001204 : For Civilian DUI conviction .
         20020208 : For conduct marking for DUI .

Types of Documents Submitted

 Related to Military Service:      DD 214:          Service and/or Medical Record:            Other Records:

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



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

Applicant’s Issues

 1. Misdiagnosis has caused the Applicant to find answers for himself
2. Condition was not properly diagnosed. Military diagnosed as – Bi-polar Disorder for alcoholism
3 . Military failure to properly diagnose the Applicant’s condition has caused the condition to be aggravated

Decision

Date: 20 08 0404             Location: Washington D.C         R epresentation :

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

 Issue s 1-3: ( ). The Board found no diagnosis in the Applicant’s medical record that referred to any mental illness or mental condition. Further, on 20020124, the Applicant indicated that he had not been evaluated or treated for a mental condition on physical examination questionnaire. 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 the command unfairly singled him out for ridicule or discipline. The Applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity in this case.

At an Addictions Consultation on 20000715 , the Applicant was diagnosed as alcohol dependant and was prescribed Antabuse. On 20010129 that Applicant signed a statement that he read, understood and agreed with the following: “Attended I ntensive O utpatient Alcohol Treatment from 20000801 to 20000814 and was exited as a treatment failure due to lack of motivation, unauthorized absence and drank while in treatment r eceiving a DUI on 20000813.

The Board reviews the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge individually, on a case-by-case basis. If such a review reveals an impropriety or inequity, relief is in order. Regulations permit relief on equitable grounds if the Applicant’s discharge is inconsistent with standards of discipline of the Naval service. There is credible evidence in the record that the Applicant established a pattern of misconduct . The evidence of record does not demonstrate that the Applicant was not responsible for h is c onduct or that he should not be held accountable for h is actions. When a Marine’s service has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service under honorable conditions. A 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 three retention warnings, two nonjudicial punishment s (NJP) for a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice ( UCMJ ), Article 134 (Altering an ID Card) and Article 86 (Unauthorized absence), and two civil convictions for Driving under the influence. V iolation of Article 134 is considered a serious offense for which a punitive discharge is authorized if adjudged by a Special or General Courts Martial. An upgrade to general (under h onorable conditions) would be inappropriate.

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, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found that

Pertinent Regulation/Law

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

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 134.



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 | 2008_Navy | ND0800235

    Original file (ND0800235.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    From Representation: From Member of Congress: Other Documentation (Describe) DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT Applicant’s Issues 1. By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall ALCOHOL REHABILITATION FAILURE.Discussion Issue 1 (): The Applicant contends that because his DUI charges were dropped he is not an alcohol rehabilitation treatment failure. Additionally, the NDRB does not have the authority to change a narrative reason for...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700694

    Original file (ND0700694.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Service Record2. The Applicant’s conduct during the current period of service, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service was marred by the award of one retention warning, a civilian conviction for DUI, and one nonjudicial punishments (NJP) for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), Article 78 (Accessory after the fact), Article 92 (Dereliction in the performance of duties), and Article 134 (Fleeing the scene of an accident). ...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0800566

    Original file (ND0800566.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s Request: Characterization change to: Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive: USNR (DEP) 20030909 - 20030925 Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 20030926Period of Enlistment: Years Extension Date of Discharge: 20070416Length of Service: Yrs Mths21 Dys Education Level: Age at Enlistment: AFQT: NFIRHighest Rank/Rate: FT2 Evaluation Marks: Performance: 3.0(1) Behavior: 1.0(1) OTA: 2.43 Awards and Decorations (per DD 214): NDSM...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801459

    Original file (MD0801459.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant should be aware completion of these items alone does not guarantee an upgrade from an unfavorable discharge as each discharge is reviewed by the Board on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service conduct mitigates the reason for the characterization of discharge.Besides the personal statement provided on the DD Form-293, the Applicant provided additional statements and evidence of The Board determined based on the limited documentation provided an upgrade would be...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801518

    Original file (MD0801518.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    As stated in the above paragraph, when the quality of a service member has met the standards of accepted conduct and performance of duty for military personnel, it is appropriate to characterize that service under “Honorable” conditions. The Applicant received a “General (Under Honorable Conditions)”. The Board determined an upgrade or change would be inappropriate.After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Record, Discharge Process...

  • USMC | DRB | 2007_Marine | MD0701054

    Original file (MD0701054.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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, the Board found that Summary of ServicePrior Service: Inactive: USMCR (DEP) 20000720 - 20010610 Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 20010611Years Contracted:4; Extension: Date of Discharge: 20040217Length of Service: 02 Yrs 08 Mths07 DysLost Time:Days UA: Days Confined: Education Level:...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0800873

    Original file (ND0800873.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s Request: Characterization change to: Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive: USNR (DEP)19980427 - 19980603Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 19980604Period of Enlistment: YearsExtensionDate of Discharge:20051122Length of Service: Yrs Mths19 DysEducation Level: Age at Enlistment:AFQT: 45/64Highest Rank/Rate:DT3EvaluationMarks:Performance: 3.9(9) Behavior:2.9(9)OTA: 3.42Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):,,,,Periods of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700585

    Original file (ND0700585.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant’s service was marred by one retention warnings and 4 nonjudicial punishments for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Articles 86 (unauthorized absence), 92 (dereliction of duty) and 134 (incapacitating oneself for performance of duties). 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, the Board found that...

  • USMC | DRB | 2007_Marine | MD0700516

    Original file (MD0700516.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Absent any documentation provided by the Applicant for the Board to consider, the Board determined that the Applicant’s service record did notmitigate the misconduct that resulted in the characterization of discharge.An upgrade would be inappropriate.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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900297

    Original file (ND0900297.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The NDRB determined based on the frequency and seriousness of the misconduct committed by the Applicant and the absence of mitigating circumstances that an upgrade is not warranted.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 MISCONDUCT (DRUG ABUSE).The Applicant...