Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801200
Original file (MD0801200.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-, USMC
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20080506
Characterization of Service Received:
Narrative Reason for Discharge:
Authority for Discharge: MARCORSEPMAN

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

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
 Inactive: USMCR (DEP)     19951130 - 19960916              Active: 19960907-20001012 HON
Period of Service Under Review:
 Date of Enlistment: 20001013               Period of E nlistment : Years Months             Date of Discharge: 20020416
Length of Service : Yrs Mths 00 D ys      Education Level:         Age at Enlistment:       AFQT: 67
MOS: 2841        Highest Rank:                     Fitness R eports:
Proficiency/Conduct marks (# of occasions):      4.4/4.4 (13)
Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214): Rifle : , Pistol : , , LoA x2.

Periods of UA / CONF :

NJPs :     2
         20010918: Art icle 86 ( A bsenting self from appointed place of duty) .
         Awarded - FOP ($350 for 1 month), RESTR EPD (14/14). Susp - NONE.
         20020302: Art icle 112a ( W rongful use of cocaine) .
         Awarded - RIR (E3), FOP ($734 for 2 months), RESTR EPD (45/45). Susp - NONE.

Types of Documents Submitted/reviewed

 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. Isolated incident.
2. Married too young .

Decision

 Date: 20 08 0711             Location: Washington D.C .         R epresentation :

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

 : ( ) . The Applicant notes his misconduct was an isolated incident . A discharge under other than honorable conditions is warranted when significant negative aspects of a service members record outweigh the positive. 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. In the Applicant's case, his record was marred by two non-judicial punishments for violations of the U niform C ode of M ilitary J ustice (UCMJ), Article 86 (A bsenting himself from appointed place of duty) and Article 112a ( W rongful use of cocaine). Violations of UCMJ Article 112a are considered serious offenses for which a punitive discharge and imprisonment may be awarded if adjudged at a Special or General Court Martial. Furthermore, the board noted the Applicant signed a Statement of Understanding on 29 N ovember 1995 in which he was advised discharge processing was required for any violations of the Marine Corps' drug policy. The Board determined an upgrade to the Applicant's discharge would be inappropriate.

: ( ) . The Board inferred from the Applicants issues he feels he was married to o young and this somehow contributed to his misconduct. There is nothing in the Applicants record to suggest he was not responsible for his actions based on his marital status or being young. As previously noted, he was made aware of the Marine Corps' drug policy prior to enlistment and he was found guilty at non-judicial punishment for wrongfully using cocaine. Again, the Board determined a discharge upgrade would be inappropriate.

After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Record, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found

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 112a (wrongful use of a controlled substance) .


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 or is referred to a court-martial fo r 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 other medical related reasons. ” 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 special 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. The NDRB does not have the jurisdictional authority to review a discharge or dismissal resulting from a general court-martial.

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 | 2011_Navy | ND1100604

    Original file (ND1100604.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant’s record of service during her enlistment period reflects one NAVPERS 1070/613 retention-counseling warning being issued. Furthermore, the Applicant’s service record documents four nonjudicial punishments (NJPs) for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), specifically: Article 86 (Absent without leave, 4 specifications of unauthorized absence); Article 87 (Missing movement); Article 89 (Disrespect toward a superior commissioned officer); Article 91...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801245

    Original file (MD0801245.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.Employment opportunities. ” Additional Reviews : Subsequent to a document review, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application is received at the NDRB within 15 years from the date of discharge. Additionally, the Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities.

  • USMC | DRB | 2013_Marine | MD1301636

    Original file (MD1301636.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD13-01636 DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT APPLICANT'S ISSUES The Applicant secks an upgrade to qualify for veterans benefits.. Upon retum from Iraq, however, further misconduct led the command to impose ae Z OT ~ Docket No. The Applicant can provide documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments or any additional evidence related to this discharge.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900106

    Original file (ND0900106.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The NDRB determined the awarded discharge characterization was appropriate and an upgrade founded upon the Applicant’s record of service would be inappropriate.After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Record Entries, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found ADDENDUM: Information for the Applicant Complaint Procedures : If you believe that the decision in your case is unclear, not responsive to the...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0800941

    Original file (MD0800941.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Susp - None.SCMs: SPCMs: 1 20011012: Article 112a (Wrongful use of marijuana), Article 134 (Breaking restriction), 2 specifications.Sentence - BCD, 60 days confinement, FOP ($650 for 4 months).CC:6105 Counseling: Types of Documents Submitted/reviewedRelated 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1001750

    Original file (ND1001750.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. Based on the limited post-service documentation, the NDRB determined the awarded characterization of service shall remain Under Other Than Honorable Conditions.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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801241

    Original file (MD0801241.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. The Board determined an upgrade would be inappropriate.After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Record, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found Pertinent Regulation/Law A. ” Additional Reviews : Subsequent to a document review, former members are eligible for a personal appearance...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801152

    Original file (MD0801152.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    There was no evidence in the record, nor was any submitted by the Applicant, documenting he was not responsible for his actions or that the misconduct should be excused based on youth and immaturity. Again, the Board determined an upgrade would be inappropriate.After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Record, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found Pertinent Regulation/Law A. ” Additional Reviews :...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1102040

    Original file (ND1102040.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. ” Additional Reviews : After...

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0900684

    Original file (MD0900684.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The NDRB determined the awarded discharge was appropriate and an upgrade would be inappropriate.After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Record, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found 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...