Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801353
Original file (MD0801353.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-, USMC
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20080605
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)     20000403 - 20000710              Active:          20000711 - 20031002

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment: 20031003      Period of E nlistment : Years Months     Date of Discharge: 20070320
Length of Service : Yrs Mths 18 D ys      Education Level:         Age at Enlistment:       AFQT: 34
MOS: 3531 Highest Rank: Fitness R eports:
Proficiency/Conduct M arks (# of occasions): ( ) / ( )
 Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      Rifle (5) (IRAQ) PUC NUC

Periods of UA / CONF :

NJPs :    

S CMs :   
20061129 : Art icle 92 ( Violate a lawful general order),
Article 128 (Assault).
 Sentence .
 CA action (20061207) Sentence is approved and ordered executed.

SPCMs:  

CC:      

6105 Counseling :

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

 The NDRB did note administrative error(s) on the original DD Form 214:

         “ CONTINUOUS HONORABLE ACTIVE SERVICE FROM 20000711 TO 20031002 ”

The NDRB will recommend to the Commandant of the Marine Corps that the DD 214 be corrected as appropriate.


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) : News article



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

Applicant’s Issues

 1. Feels his discharge should have been medical due to P ost T raumatic S tress D isorder (PTSD) .
2. Claims h e was denied proper medical treatment /information .
 3. Claims h e was not given proper legal advic e.
 4. Isolated incident.

Decision


 Date: 20 08 082 9          Location: Washington D.C .        R epresentation :

By a vote of the Characterization shall .
By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall MISCONDUCT (COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE) .
Discussion

 Issue 1: ( ) . The Applicant claims his misconduct was a result of drinking too much to mask the problems he was having suffering from PTSD. 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 . The Applicant’s record of service was marred by 1 summary court martial for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), Article 92 and Article 1 28. Violation of these Articles is considered serious in nature and could have resulted in a punitive discharge and confinement if adjudicated by a special or general court-martial. The command did not pursue a punitive discharge but instead had a summary court martial and conducted an administrative discharge.

The Applicant re turned from his deployment to Iraq in July 200 3 . There is no reference to PTSD in his medical treatment record from July 2003 until it’s first mentioned in February 2006. There are 2 other subsequent military medical reports from May and September 2006 mentioning PTSD. In the Department of Veteran’s A ffairs records he submits, he states he was treated for PTSD in Feb ruary 2006 and was prescribed the drug, Bupropion , which is a dual purpose medication with one purpose being it can t reat mild depression . In this report, the Applicant denied he abused alcohol and drugs , which contradicts his claim above . Although PTSD is list ed on three of his military medical reports , dated February , May and September 2006 respectively , t here are no mental health assessments in his military medical records which say he was treated for PTSD (e.g., attended stress management classes, attended depression classes, attended anger management classes, etc.) while on active duty other than being prescribed Bupropion, or that PTSD was stopping him from performing his daily work duties or functioning in a normal daily routine.

In his statement submitted to the Board, the Applicant acknowledges upon his return to CONUS after his Iraq deployment, he was not prepared for certain life choices he made . In 2004 , he fought to obtain custody of a child, he did not know he fathered , after the mother died . In 2005, he married a woman with three children whom he adopted. In July 2005 , he was placed on the Body Composition P rogram for being 37 lbs overweight. All these events added stress to his life and by his own admission , he started drinking more. The Applicant says he was drinking too much and that he was intoxicated the night of the incident with his wife. The Applicant went to a summary court-martialed in November 2006 for assault on his wife and for having an unregistered firearm on a military installation. The Applicant plead guilty to these charges. A review of the record reveals that at no time did he mention PTSD may have caused his violence or was a factor in the misconduct . Despite his claim his drinking was severe, there is no documentation he was command screened or treated for alcohol abuse while on active duty. He produces no evidence to support his claim that he was not responsible for his actions and there is no evidence in his medical record relieving him of responsibility for his actions based on PTSD or any other medical reasoning. The Board determined an upgrade would be inappropriate.

Issue 2: (Equity) RELIEF NOT WARRANTED. The Applicant claims military doctors did not properly explain the possible side effects of the drugs he was ta king for his PTSD. When he discovered the side effects, he became scared and did not take the prescribed drugs which exacerbated his PTSD symptoms and thus his alcohol abuse . Over the course of his enlistment, the


Applicant was seen frequently by military doctors for an extensive variety of medical problems. He wa s prescribed a number of drugs to address multiple health symptoms to include, but not limited to, Bupro pion. Each drug comes with a printout that
clearly st ates the possible side effects . Additionally , it was noted documentation stating the Applicant’s military doctor discussed potential side effects with him for the Bupropion prescription and he indicated understanding of the side effects. The documentation shows at least 15 minutes face-to-face time with the doctor with greater than 50% of the visit time spent coun seling and coordinating care. For the edification of the Applicant i t is the patient’s responsibility to read these enclosures accompanying prescriptions and bring up any concerns to their health services provider.

It was also noted the Applicant had been prescribed Citalopram, Temazepam, and Lorazepam from the Veteran’s Healthcare System , issued in 2008, after the Applicant’s discharge.

Issue 3: ( Propriety ) RELIEF NOT WARRANTED. The Applicant claims his did not know what he was signing when he waived his Administrative Separation Legal Rights. He states he was misled by his lawyer as to the severity of his punishment and that he thought he would be incarcerated “forever”. The Applicant signed a Pre-Trial Agreement before his Summary Court-Martial for violations of the UCMJ , Articles 92 and 128, punishable by a d ishonorable discharge and up to imprisonment if adjudicated as part of the sentence upon conviction by a special or general court-martial. In this P re-Trial Agreement, he acknowledged the limits the Convening Authority could put on his punishment. P unishment is limited to reduction to E-4, 60 days restriction and forfeitures of two thirds of one month’s pay. Confinement is not listed as a potential punishment. Additionally, n o where in the Acknowledgement of Rights for Separation notification for Commission of a Serious Offense , which he initialed, is imprisonment listed . The Board determined an upgrade would be inappropriate and the claim of improper legal advice was unfounded.

Issue 4: (Equity) RELIEF NOT WARRANTED. The Applicant states that he was never in any trouble before and this is an isolated incident. Additionally, he claims the charge of having an unregistered firearm was dropped. For the information of the Applicant, d espite a service member’s prior record of se rvice certain serious offenses, even though isolate d, warrant separation from the n aval service in order to maintain proper order and discipline . The Applicant’s record of service is marred by a number of counseling entries. In 2002 , he was denied promotion several times due to lack of leadership and initiative. In 2004 , he was counseled for failing to qualify on the rifle for lack of effort. In 2005 , he was put on the Body Composition Program since he was 37 lbs over th e USMC standard for his height. His Pro/Con marks ar e not those of a top performer, reflecting an overall 3.0/2.0. In two fitness reports from 2006, it is noted he “failed a unit run, lacks the judgment, initiative and character expected of a Sergeant of Marines .” On h is Fitness report s he is consistently placed in the bottom 1/2 to 1/3 in peer rankings. The Summary Cour t - Martial record dated 29 November 2006 shows the Applicant plead and was found GUILTY, in addition to Article 128, of violation of Article 92, UCMJ having an unregistered firearm. This evidence of record contradicts the Applicant’s understanding the unregistered firearm charge was dropped ; it was not dropped according to the record . The Board determined an upgrade would be inappropriate based on an insolated incident in light of the evidence from the summary court martial and the violations of the UCMJ involved.

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. Paragraph 6210, MISCONDUCT of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16E), effective
1 September 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 s 92, 128.



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

  • USMC | DRB | 2014_Marine | MD1401251

    Original file (MD1401251.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ADDENDUM: Information for the Applicant Complaint Procedures : If you believe 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. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been...

  • USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0600947

    Original file (MD0600947.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. In addition to the remaining civilian charges (specifically assault and brandishing an unregistered weapon), the Applicant was awarded nonjudicial punishment for violating a military protective order when he visited his wife on 050114. You may view DoD Instruction 1332.28 and other Decisional Documents by going online at “ http://Boards.law.af.mil ” .The names, and...

  • USMC | DRB | 2013_Marine | MD1300009

    Original file (MD1300009.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

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

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0900397

    Original file (MD0900397.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant’s service medical record, which was reviewed by the NDRB in determining the Applicant’s case, was very limitedin content. 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2015_Marine | MD1500426

    Original file (MD1500426.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant’s record of service included 6105 counseling warnings; for of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 86 (Absence without leave), Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation; 2 specifications), and Article 107 (False official statements); and for of the UCMJ: Article 86 (Absence without leave; 3 specifications), Article 91 (Insubordinate conduct toward warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer; 2 specifications), Article 92 (Failure to obey...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130019148

    Original file (20130019148.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. Article 71(c) having been complied with, and the sentence to confinement having been completed, that portion of the sentence pertaining to a bad conduct discharge was to be executed. Conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with...

  • USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1100019

    Original file (MD1100019.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

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

  • NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1000741

    Original file (ND1000741.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. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL...

  • USMC | DRB | 2007_Marine | MD0700185

    Original file (MD0700185.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After a thorough review of the Applicant’s record, issues submitted, and post service accomplishments, the Board determined that clemency was not warranted and that the sentence awarded the Applicant at his court-martial was appropriate for the offenses he committed. ” 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,...

  • USMC | DRB | 2007_Marine | MD0700509

    Original file (MD0700509.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 Service Prior Service: Inactive: USMCR (DEP) 20020812 - 20030804 Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 20030805Years Contracted:4; Extension: Date of Discharge: 20060505Length of Service: 02 Yrs 09 Mths00 DysLost Time:Days UA: Days Confined: Education...