Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801521
Original file (MD0801521.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-, USMC
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20080709
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) 20030411 - 20031102                Active:

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment: 20031103     Period of E nlistment : Years Months     Date of Discharge: 200406 07
Length of Service : Y ea rs M on ths 5 D a ys          Education Level: E        Age at Enlistment:       AFQT: 80
MOS: 9971         Highest Rank:    Fitness R eports:
Proficiency/Conduct M arks (# of occasions):       ( ) / 1.9 ( )
 Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214): Rifle -

Periods of UA : 20040229 – 200403 29 (from DD 214)

NJPs :
20040407 : Art icle 86 ( Unauthorized absence )
Article 112a (W rongful use of a controlled substance: to wit, Cocaine )
Awarded : . Susp ended:

6105 Counseling :
20040331 : For Illegal drug involvement

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) :

Pertinent Regulation/Law

 A . Ma rine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16F ) , effective 1 September 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 .


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

Applicant’s Issues

 1. Reenlistment opportunity.
2. Incorrect d ischarge
3 . Record of s ervice .
4. P ost s ervice conduct.

Decision

 Date : 20 08 0925             Location: Washington D.C .         R epresentation :

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

 : 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 , specifically the paragraph concerning s , regarding .

: ( ) . 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 a non-judicial punishment for violation of the U niform C ode of M ilitary J ustice (UCMJ) , Article 86 ( Unauthorized absence ) and Article 112a (W rongful use of a controlled substance: to wit, cocaine ) and a retention warning. Violations of Article 112a are considered serious offenses, punishable by punitive discharge and confinement if adjudicated by a special or general court-martial. The command did not pursue a punitive discharge but opted instead for an administrative discharge.

 The Applicant contends his discharge should have been under the guidance of an Entry Level Separation, in which he claims he warranted an “Uncharacterized” discharge vice an “Under Other than Honorable” discharge. An “Uncharacterized” discharge is appropriate when a member has served less than 180 days of continuous active duty service. However, p er the Ma rine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, MCO P1900.16F , there are limited cases where processing under a more serious basis is appropriate and where discharge characterization under other than honorable conditions is warranted. In addition, the Manual states “ nothing cited in the Entry Level Performance and Conduct , paragraph (6205) , precludes separation for another reason listed in this Manual. ” The Applicant’s confirmed use of Cocaine meets the criteria where the discharge characterization “Under Other Than Honorable Condition” is warranted. T he Board determined an upgrade would be inappropriate.
-4 : ( Equity) . The Applicant contends his discharge should be upgraded based on his record of service and post service contributions. For the edification of the Applicant d espite a Marine’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. An “Under Other Than Honorable C onditions ” discharge is appropriate when the basis for separation is commission or omission of an act that constitutes a significant departure from the conduct expected from a Marine. As stated in the above paragraph, the Applicant’s confirmed use of Cocaine constitutes a significant departure from the conduct expected from a United States Marine.

With regards to the Applicant’s statement of not receiving counseling, by acknowledging with your initials and signature, records show that you were briefed (counseled) by the Consolidated Substance Abuse Counseling Center at Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton. These forms are part of the Pre-evaluation Brief, the Client Refus a l of Medical Officer Evaluation (MOE) Statement and the VA Treatment Location Statement, which the two latter documents were witnessed and signed by two other people dated 31 March 2004. On the bases of this issue, t he Board determined the Applicant’s claim is without merit .




The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. However, there is no law or regulation, which provides an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in the civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Outstanding post-service conduct, 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, is considered during Board reviews . Supporting documentation to help support a post service conduct upgrade includes, but is not limited to: a verifiable continuous employment record; documentation of community or church service; certification of non-involvement with civil authorities; evidence of financial stability or letters of good standing from banks, credit card company’s or other financial institutions; documentation of a drug free lifestyle; and character witness statements. 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 pr ovided additional statements and evidence of post service accomplishments. The Board commends the Applicant for his success in completing the chemical dependency treatment program at the Cedar Springs Behavioral Health Systems and his volunteer work at the Foundation for Burns and Trauma. However , t o warrant an upgrade to “Honorable” the Applicant’s post service efforts need to be more encompassing. The Applicant could have produced additional evidence as stated in the above paragraph with the full understanding completion of these items alone does not guarantee an upgrade. The Board determined based on the limited documentation provided an upgrade would be inappropriate and the characterization of service received, “Under Other Than Honorable Conditions”, was an appropriate characterization considering the limited time served and the UCMJ violation 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


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 | 2008_Marine | MD0801078

    Original file (MD0801078.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. 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 and evidence...

  • 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801200

    Original file (MD0801200.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 Status: Community Service: References: Additional Statements From Applicant: From Representation: From Member of Congress: Other Documentation (Describe) DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900261

    Original file (ND0900261.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 Presiding Officer’s Signature:_______________________________________ 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900694

    Original file (ND0900694.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board determined the awarded discharge was appropriate and an upgrade based on an isolated incident would be inappropriate.The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Record Entries, Discharge Process and DD Form 293 submitted by the Applicant, the Board found ADDENDUM: Information for the Applicant Complaint Procedures : If you believe...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0901142

    Original file (ND0901142.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant has requested an upgrade in his discharge characterization to “General (Under Honorable Conditions)”. The Board determined the characterization of service received was an appropriate characterization considering the length of prior service and the UCMJ violation involved, and based on the limited post-service documentation provided an upgrade would be inappropriate.Should the Applicant obtain additional evidence or post-servicedocumentation he may wish to apply for a personal...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801767

    Original file (MD0801767.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall MISCONDUCT.Discussion :().The Applicant contends his discharge should be upgraded based on his isolated misconduct in an otherwise honorable record of service. The NDRB determined the Applicant’s discharge was processed in a timely manner, especially in light of the events which occurred between his NJP and his discharge.After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Record, Discharge Process and...

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0900302

    Original file (MD0900302.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0900662

    Original file (MD0900662.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Record, Discharge Process and DD Form 293 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 document requirements of DoD Instruction 1332.28, you may submit a complaint in accordance with...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900448

    Original file (ND0900448.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    While the Board applauds the Applicant’s post-service efforts, the Board determined the evidence of post-service conduct was not sufficient enough to warrant an upgrade. 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...