Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0900060
Original file (MD0900060.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-, USMC
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20081008
Characterization of Service Received:
Narrative Reason for Discharge:
Authority for Discharge: MARCORSEPMAN

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

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive: USMCR (DEP)     19990805 - 19991227     Active:  

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment: 19991228     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Months
Date of Discharge: 20030408      H ighest Rank:
Length of Service : Y ea rs M on ths 11 D a ys
Education Level:        AFQT: 43
MOS: 0311
Proficiency/Conduct M arks (# of occasions): ( ) / ( )    Fitness R eports:

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      Rifle Pistol

Periods of UA / CONF : UA 20020923-20020925 (3 days)

NJP: 3
- 20000927 :       Article 86 ( UA), 0730-1800, 20000920 (1 0 hours, 30 minutes)
         A rticle 92 (Disobeyed Liberty Buddy Program )
          Awarded: Suspended:

- 2000121 3 :      Article 86 ( UA ) , 0601, 20001208 – 0715, 20000209 (1 day)
         Article 92 ( Disobeyed Liberty Buddy Program )
          Awarded: Suspended:

- 20021008:      Article 112a (Wrongfully used a controlled substance-cocaine)
         Awarded : Susp ended:

SCM: SPCM: CC:

Retention Warning Counseling :

- 20010315 :       For recent NJP on 20001213
- 20020108: For a civilian alcohol related incident (DUI on 20011226, Lexington, KY, blood alcohol of 0.1)
- 20020627: For Lack of Maturity (not being able to follow orders and regulations & completion of simple tasks
- 20021202: For illegal drug involvement, cocaine usage , per NavDrugLab JAXFL message R031619ZOct 02

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 :

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 s of the UCMJ : Article 86 (U A) , Article 92 (Failure to obey an order or regulation) and Article 112a (Drug abuse, wrongful use of a controlled substance).



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

Applicant’s Issues
1. Service b enefits .
2. Unjust discharge due to mitigating circumstances .

Decision

 Date: 20 0 9 0129            Location: Washington D.C .         R epresentation :

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

Administrative Note: The Applicant’s DD-293 and Veteran’s Administration (VA) claim appear to be written by the Applicant’s mother and then signed by the service member. The Board acknowledged this effort on the mother’s behalf for her son and references both interchangeably.

: 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 , regarding .

: ( ) . The Applicant contend s his discharge was unjust due to the fact his misconduct was the result of undiagnosed mental health issues. 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 4 retention warnings and 3 NJP’s for violations of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 86 (U A) ; Article 92 (Failure to obey an order or regulation) and Article 112a (Drug abuse, wrongful use 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 opted instead for an administrative discharge.

The Board reviewed all documents contained in the member’s military service and medical record that were available . It was noted the Applicant required a pre-service waiver to join the military for previous involvement with both alcohol and drugs. On the physical exam documentation from the Military Entrance Processing Station there is no indication the Applicant reported any history of mental health issues or additional drug usage or alcohol abuse beyond that for which he had already received a waiver for . T his is not an uncommon occurrence as many young hopeful service member s are embarrassed of their past association with both of these issues and attempt to down play the significance it has had on them. Additionally, the official service record does not show any indication at this stage of the indoctrination process his pre - service drug or alcohol us age w ere of major concern for enlistment purposes . These issues are not uncommon nor are they normally barriers which prohibit the military from taking members into the ir ranks . Occasionally, those with similar problems desiring to serve their country believe joining the military will help them gain a clearer understanding of themselves and provide direction they previous ly have been unable to obtain on their own. Military service offers this opportunity for those willing to improve their physical and mental well being in a structured controlled environment. T he recruiters’ whole-heartily believed the Applicant could mature, change and become a good Marine with the discipline the Marine Corps normally instills in its members . P re-service drug and alcohol waivers were obtained for marijuana use, a DUI in March 1998 and Alcohol Intoxication in May 1998 .





Unfortunately, the Applicant ’ s continued use of alcohol and illegal drugs led to his untimely discharge from the Marine Corps as stated above. After the Applicant ’ s first alcohol related incident the command referred him to the Alcohol Rehabilitation Department for an initial screening on 17 Oct ober 2000. On 31 October 2000, the Applicant was evaluated and diagnosed as alcohol dependen t with physiological dependence. It was recommended he attend the Intensive Outpatient Program ( IOP ), which the Applicant complied with and completed ; he was discharged from the IOP on 12 Feb ruary 2001. By policy, a ll service members separated for drug or alcohol abuse are screened for dependency and provided the option of treatment prior to separation; t he intent of this treatment is for the benefit of the Applicant after their discharge, not to rehabilitate the A pplicant for continued military service. T he Marine Corps complied with this policy.

With regards to his mental health issues , during the IOP treatment, the Applicant stated and it was entered into his record , he was subject ed to emotional abuse by his family when growing up. Other than this claim , there was no mention of the Applicant having any mental health issues nor were any detected throughout the program which would have raised alarm or concern by the professionals trained to notice these issues who were helping his with his alcohol rehabilitation.

In a claim filed with the VA t he App licant’s mother states , on his behalf, he started to deteriorate after the 9/11 attacks and became preoccupied with the Bible while on ship and spent a great deal of time with the ship’s Chaplain. She also claims he told her he began hallucinatin g and hearing voices and state d he believed “Jesus selected him as a pro p het.” The mother claims her son could not tell reality from fantasy. If mental health issues of this magnitude were materializing at this time it stands to reason t he Chaplain would have recognized these issues and referred him to the mental health staff ; especially if he was becoming hallucinogenic , hearing voices and claiming Jesus selected him to be a prophet . However , there is no documentation the Applicant or anyone on his behalf, expressed concerns to the command or the commanding officer about his mental condition or his claims of hallucinating, hearing voices or believing he was a prophet selected by Jesus . There is no documentation that supports the Applicant sought health assistance for anything other than his treatment for alcohol .

The Applicant ’s alcohol problems existed prior to entry in the service; the Marine Corps waived his past incidents with alcohol and drugs and tried to help him when alcohol and drugs sta r ted to affect him as a Marine . While in the Marine Corps, the Applicant received proper treatment prior to being discharged for his substance abuse problem . Although alcohol abuse and the use of illegal drugs were the misconduct which resulted in his separation , the record does not state the Applicant was not responsible for his misconduct or he should not be held accountable for his actions . Nor does it state he was not mentally competent due to schizophrenia or any other mental illness which would impair his ability to understand right from wrong actions . There is no military medical evidence , or indications from the command based on voiced or written concerns from the mother , that anything psychological ly abnormal was occurring with the Appl i cant.

Besides the Applicant ’ s statement on the DD Form 293, several documents were included to show the decrease in his mental condition in the years following his discharge . The Board acknowledges these documents ; however , the Board draws no connection to the Applicant’s current condition and the mother ’s claim the military is totally at fault for t he onset of her son’s illness for not diagnosing or treating him sooner . The record demonstrates the military did everything it normally does in substance abuse cases and there were no documented indicators to alert military officials or medical doctors to the initial stages of schizophrenia. The NDRB 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 limited post service documentation provided 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 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 | 2004 Marine | MD04-00864

    Original file (MD04-00864.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD04-00864 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20040427. _______________________________________________________________________ In accordance with 32 C.F.R., section 724.166 and SECNAVINST 5420.174C, enclosure (1), paragraph 1.16, The American Legion submits to the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB or Board) the above issue and following statement in supplement to this Applicant’s petition. The Applicant’s Representative states that “this Applicant is...

  • USMC | DRB | 2013_Marine | MD1300873

    Original file (MD1300873.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    There is no indication in the evidence of record or in the documentation submitted by the Applicant’s mother that the Applicant was recommended for or processed for a medical board by proper authority. The NDRB determined his command did not purposely hold his administrative separation board before his civilian court date, and the Applicant received full due process during the administrative proceedings. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01281

    Original file (ND03-01281.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. In the acknowledgment letter, the Applicant was informed that the Board first conducts a record review prior to any personal appearance hearing. 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.

  • USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0600998

    Original file (MD0600998.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    At the time of the hearing, the Applicant’s representatives submitted an “Applicants Statement of Issues” form, wherein the Applicant requested that the Discharge Characterization of Service be changed to General (Under Honorable Conditions). On 20040823 the Applicant’s counsel submitted a request for a continuance for the Applicant’s administrative separation board. In a letter dated 20040825, the separation authority notified the Applicant’s attorney’s, that the request for continuance...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0800746

    Original file (MD0800746.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The NDRB determined an upgrade founded upon the Applicant’s post-service conduct 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0501315

    Original file (MD0501315.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). Discharged to command.2. th Marines, recommended Applicant’s discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of illegal drug use, specifically amphetamine and methamphetamine.

  • USMC | DRB | 2013_Marine | MD1301661

    Original file (MD1301661.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. The Applicant wants a medical discharge. ” 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.

  • USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1001823

    Original file (MD1001823.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant was separated from the Marine Corps on 19 Feb 2009 with an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge due to Misconduct (Drug Abuse).Issues 1 and 2: (Decisional) () . After detailed review and careful consideration of all the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s purposeful failure to keep his command informed of his medical status and his willingness to jeopardize the lives of his fellow Marines by using illegal drugs while conducting combat operations within...

  • USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0600401

    Original file (MD0600401.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. The Head of the Alcohol Rehabilitation Department stated that although the Applicant had not complied with his Aftercare plan, he was not considered a treatment failure unless he returned to drinking or had another Alcohol Related Incident (ARI).031009: An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon preponderance of the evidence and by unanimous vote, found that the...

  • USMC | DRB | 2007_Marine | MD0700827

    Original file (MD0700827.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After a complete review of the entire record, including the evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board determined that the discharge was appropriate in light of the nature and seriousness of the Applicant’s misconduct, and that the evidence of post-service conduct was not sufficient to convince the Board that an upgrade was appropriate at this time.In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of Government affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to...