Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801897
Original file (MD0801897.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-, USMC
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20080909
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) 20001018 - 20010702                Active:

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment: 20010703     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Months
Date of Discharge: 20050702      H ighest Rank:
Length of Service : Y ea rs M on ths 00 D a ys
Education Level:        AFQT: 76
MOS: 1142
Proficiency/Conduct M arks (# of occasions): ( ) / ( ) Fitness R eports:

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214): Rifle ,

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

NJP:
- 20050214 : Article 112a (Drug use)
 Awarded : Susp ended: Suspension vacated: 20050401

Retention Warning Counseling :

- 20040601 : For violation of Article 92 (Dis obeying a direct order or regulation)
- 20050225 : For lack of judgment, admitted to drug abuse (marijuana)

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. Administrative Separation Board was unfair.
2. Sou ght help for drug abuse problem in January, but didn’t receive treatment until April.
3. Record of service.
4. Placed on restriction after contacting Congressman.

Decision


 Date: 20 0 9 0114   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 contends he is entitled to a discharge upgrade because his Administrative Separation Board was unfair. Specifically, the Applicant contends two of the members of the board were subordinates of the commanding officer. 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 two retention warnings and one NJP for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 112a ( Drug use, w rongful use or possession of a controlled substance). 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 command did not pursue a punitive discharge but instead opted for an administrative discharge .
The record of evidence shows the counsel for the respondent challenged the members in question during the hearing and addressed this issue again in his Letter of Deficiency dated 23 May 2005. Based on the Applicant’s objections to the board members during the hearing, the legal advisor conducted a “ voir dire ” and determined the members in question could be fair and impartial. A “voir dire” consists of oral questions asked of prospective jurors by the judge, the parties, or the attorneys, or some combination thereof. This oral questioning, often supplemented by a prior written questionnaire, is used to determine whether a potential juror is biased, knows any of the parties, counsel, or witnesses, or should otherwise be excluded from jury duty. Voir dire is a tool used to achieve the constitutional right to an impartial jury, but it is not a constitutional right in itself.
 The legal advisor responded t o the letter of deficiency item addressing this issue again and noted that “all decisions of the legal advisor on challenges are final.” The legal advisor’s response was positively endorsed by the Applicant’s Commanding Officer, Staff Judge Advocate, and the Commanding General. Based on the thorough treatment already given to this issue, the NDRB determined the awarded discharge was appropriate and an upgrade based on the Applicant’s contention of an unfair Administrative Separation Board would be inappropriate.

: ( ) . The Applicant contends he is entitled to a discharge upgrade because he asked for substance abuse treatment in January 2005 but did not receive treatment until April 2005. The available record of evidence shows the Applicant completed a substance abuse screening on 10 February 2005 where he was diagnosed as a cannabis and alcohol abuser. The letter summarizing the screening result s notes the Applicant was assigned to the Intensive Outpatient treatment program which would be scheduled after the Applicant’s rehabilitation from surgery. The NDRB rejects the Applicant’s contention because the three - month delay was not determined to be significant in this case. Furthermore, the three month delay was justified due to other medical issues. The NDRB determined the awarded discharge characterization was appropriate and a n upgrade would be inappropriate.

: ( ) . The Applicant contends he is entitled to a discharge upgrade due to his record of service. Specifically, he contends his average proficiency and conduct marks warrant an upgrade. Despite a Marine’s prior record of service, certain serious offenses, even though isolated, warrant separation from the naval service in order to maintain proper order and discipline. For the edification of the Applicant, an “Under Other Than Honorable” conditions discharge is warranted when the basis for separation is commission or omission of an act that constitutes a significant departure from the conduct expected of a Marine. The NDRB determined the Applicant’s misconduct was a significant departure from that expected from a Marine and the awarded discharge was appropriate, an upgrade founded upon the Applicant’s record of service would be inappropriate.

: ( ) . The Applicant contends he is entitled to a discharge upgrade because he was placed on restriction after he contacted his congressman. The record of evidence shows the Applicant was awarded punishment at his NJP on 14 February 2005 which includ ed 45 days of restriction. The commanding officer suspended the restriction for a period of six months. On 1 April 2005 the suspension was vacated due to written statements made to his congressman regarding the extent of his drug usage. The NDRB rejects the Applicant’ s contention he was placed on restriction because he contacted his congressman ; the Applicant was placed on re s tri ct ion because he admitted more illegal drug use than he initially admitted to with his command. T he commanding officer has the authority to vacate suspended punishment based on violations of the conditions of the suspension. Furthermore, this issue has no bearing on the fact the Applicant confessed to a serious offense for which he was processed for separation. The fact that he was obligated to receive the full punishment adjudged at his NJP does not justify a discharge upgrade . The NDRB determined the awarded discharge characterization was appropriate and an upgrade based on this issue 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

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 (Drug use) .


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 | 2008_Navy | ND0801177

    Original file (ND0801177.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT Applicant’s Issues 1. The NDRB 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, ” Additional Reviews : Subsequent to a document review, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application is received at the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700445

    Original file (ND0700445.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 Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214 The NDRB did note an administrative error on the original DD Form 214: “ Continous Honorable active service from 94 SEP 29 through 98 JAN 03 ” The NDRB will recommend to the Commander, Navy Personnel Command, that the DD 214 be...

  • 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004 Marine | MD04-01063

    Original file (MD04-01063.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT ex-PVT, USMC Docket No. _________________________________________________________________ In accordance with Title 32, CFR, Section 724.166 and SECNAVINST 5420.174D, Part I, Paragraph 1.20, The American Legion submits to the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB or Board) the above issue in supplement to this Applicant’s petition. In addition to the Applicant’s three NJP’s, the Applicant’s...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND0401279

    Original file (ND0401279.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. No indication of appeal in the record.930517: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse as evidenced by all drug incidents in your current enlistment and by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense as evidenced by CO’s NJP dated 920416: Violation of UCMJ Article...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600014

    Original file (ND0600014.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions). Comments: IAW OPNAVINST 5350.4A SNM has no potential for future service and should be processed for separation.900405: An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon preponderance of the evidence and by unanimous vote, found that the Applicant had committed misconduct due to commission of a serious offense and misconduct due to drug abuse,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600241

    Original file (ND0600241.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions). The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of discharge. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500870

    Original file (ND0500870.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. No indication of appeal in the record.990204: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with the least favorable characterization of service as under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.990209: Applicant advised of rights and having consulted with counsel, elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0901331

    Original file (ND0901331.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 Representation: From Congress member: Other Documentation: DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801379

    Original file (ND0801379.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: Substance Abuse: Criminal Records: Family/Personal Status: Community Service: References: Additional Statements: From Applicant: From Representation:From Congress member: Other Documentation (Describe): - DD Form 149 DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE...