Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801844
Original file (MD0801844.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-, USMC
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20080828
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) 20030228 - 20030707                Active:

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment: 20030708     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Months
Date of Discharge: 20060414      H ighest Rank:
Length of Service : Y ea rs M on ths 07 D a ys
Education Level:        AFQT: 43
MOS: 3531
Proficiency/Conduct M arks (# of occasions): ( ) / ( ) Fitness R eports:

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214): Rifle S SDR MM

Periods of UA / CONF : NJP: SPCM: CC:

SCM:

- 20051207 : Art icle 112a ( Drug use, w rongful use cocaine)
Sentence : RESTR 60 DAYS

Retention Warning Counseling :

- 20060128 : For drug abuse.
Types of Documents Submitted/reviewed

 Related to Military Service:
DD 214:      Service / 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 Congress member :

Other Documentation :


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

Applicant’s Issues

 1. Isolated incident.
2. Unjust punishment.

Decision


 Date: 20 08 1211   Location: Washington D.C .        R epresentation :

By a vote of the Characterization shall .
By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall MISCONDUCT (DRUG ABUSE) .
Discussion

 : ( ) . The Applicant is asking for mitigation based on the fact this was his only misconduct in over 31 months of service. Additionally, he feels his punishment was too hard. 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 service was marred by his S CM for a violation of the U niform C ode of M ilitary J ustice (UCMJ): Article 112a (Drug use, illegal use of cocaine ) . Illegal drug use cannot be tolerated by any member of the Marine Crops regardless of grade or time in service. The NDRB advises the Applicant certain serious offenses warrant separation from the service in order to maintain proper order and discipline. Violation of Article 112a is one such offense requiring mandatory separation regardless of time in service or grade. Violations of this policy result in , at a minimum, mandatory processing for an administrative separation which usually results in an unfavorable characterization of discharge or, at a maximum, a punitive discharge and possible confinement if adjudicated and awarded as part of a sentence by a special or general court-martial.

The A pplicant served over 2 ½ years on active duty before he was discharged. He was well versed in the USMC policy regarding use of illegal drugs and the consequences of that choice . Review of available records reveals nothing to indicate the Applicant’s discharge was in any way inconsistent with the standards of disc ipline in the United States Marine Corps ; t he consequence for misconduct due to drug abuse is immediate separation. T he Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of service, reflects the Applicant’s willful failure to meet the requirements of the Naval Service and f alls far short of w hat is required for an upgrade in the characterization of service. The Board determined the awarded discharge characterization 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

Pertinent Regulation/Law

 A. The Marine 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.



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 | 2009_Navy | ND0900627

    Original file (ND0900627.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Violation of Article 112a (Drug use) is one such offense requiring mandatory separation regardless of time in service, grade or record of service. ” 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. Whenever a member is being processed through the Physical Evaluation Board, and subsequently is processed for an administrative...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801004

    Original file (ND0801004.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. After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Record Entries, Discharge Process and statement submitted by the Applicant and his representative, the Board...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801857

    Original file (MD0801857.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Review of available records reveals nothing to indicate the Applicant’s discharge was in any way inconsistent with the standards of discipline in the United States Marine Corps;the consequence for misconduct due to drug abuseisimmediate separation from the United States Marine Corps.The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of service, reflects the Applicant’s willful failure to meet the requirements of the Naval Service and falls far short of what...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900471

    Original file (ND0900471.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to: Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive: USNR (DEP)20060825 - 20070822Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 20070823Age at Enlistment: Period of Enlistment: YearsExtensionDate of Discharge:20080131Highest Rank/Rate: SRLength of Service: Year(s)Month(s)08 Day(s)Education Level:AFQT: 53EvaluationMarks:Performance:NFIRBehavior:NFIROTA: NFIRAwards and Decorations (per DD 214):Periods of UA/CONF:...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900472

    Original file (ND0900472.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s Request: Characterization change to: Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive: USNR (DEP) 19970130 - 19970305 Active: 19970306 - 20010301 Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 20010302Age at Enlistment: Period of Enlistment: Years Extension Date of Discharge: 20010518Highest Rank/Rate: EN2Length of Service: Year(s) Month(s) 17 Day(s) Education Level: AFQT: 35Evaluation Marks: Performance: NFIR Behavior: NFIR OTA: NFIRAwards and...

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0900171

    Original file (MD0900171.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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801429

    Original file (ND0801429.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board determined the awarded characterization 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 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801528

    Original file (ND0801528.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board has determined an upgrade is not warranted at this time based on the seriousness of the offense committed and the evidence of post service employment was not sufficient to mitigate the misconduct which resulted in her discharge. ” 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. If a former member has been discharged for...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900525

    Original file (ND0900525.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board determined the characterization of service received, “Under Other Than Honorable Conditions”, was an appropriate characterization considering the length of service and the UCMJ violations involved, and based on the lack of post service documentation provided an upgrade would be inappropriate. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801758

    Original file (ND0801758.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requested his discharge characterization be upgraded to an “Honorable”. The NDRB determined the awarded discharge characterization was appropriate for the offenses committed; an upgrade 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...