Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0900213
Original file (MD0900213.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-, USMC
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20081105
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)     20050620 - 20050706     Active:  

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment: 20050707     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Months
Date of Discharge: 20060505      H ighest Rank:
Length of Service : Y ea r ( s ) M on th ( s ) 29 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 45
MOS: 9971
Proficiency/Conduct M arks (# of occasions): 4.2 ( NFIR ) / 4.2 ( NFIR )       Fitness R eports:

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      Rifle

Periods of UA / CONF :

NJP:
- 20060118 : Article 92 (Disobeying a lawful order)
Awarded : Susp ended:

- 20060124 : Article 112a (Wrongful use or possession of a controlled substance);
 Awarded : Susp ended:

SCM: SPCM: CC: Retention Warning Counseling :

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 :
                           -Letter from Army recruiter dated 4 April 2008



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

Applicant’s Issues

 1. Reenlistment opportunity.
2. Punishment was too harsh for misconduct.
3. Not properly counseled about type of discharge received.
4. Mother’s illness mitigated misconduct.
 5. Intoxication mitigated his misconduct.

Decision

 Date: 20 0 9 0223            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 , regarding this Issue.
: ( ) . The Applicant contends he is entitled to a discharge upgrade because the punishment for his misconduct was too harsh. 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 NJPs for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 92 (Disobeying a lawful order) and 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 NDRB rejects the Applicant’s contention. As discussed above, the Applicant could have been tried by court-martial and been sentenced to confinement and a punitive discharge for the misconduct he committed. The NDRB determined the awarded discharge was appropriate and an upgrade would be inappropriate.

: ( ) . The Applicant contends he is entitled to a discharge upgrade because he was not properly counseled about the type of discharge he would receive. The NDRB rejects the Applicant’s contention because it is not supported by the record of evidence. On 31 January 2006 the Applicant was notified in writing of the command’s intent to initiate separation proceedings seeking an “Under Other Than Honorable Conditions” discharge based on the illegal use of marijuana. The Applicant acknowledged receipt on this notice and advisement of his rights on 3 February. In the Applicant’s response, he indicated he had met with counsel, specifically Capt McNair. There is no indication in the record the Applicant was unhappy or unsatisfied with his counsel at the time of his discharge proceedings nor that the Applicant wasn’t properly represented by his counsel . Therefore, the NDRB determined an upgrade would be improper

: ( ) . The Applicant contends he is entitled to a discharge because his mother’s illness mitigated his misconduct. Specifically, he contends that after learning of his mother’s diagnosis with breast cancer he became intoxicated to the point he does not recall using marijuana. The NDRB rejects the Applicant’s contention. While the Applicant may feel his grief following his mother’s illness was the underlying cause of his misconduct, the record of evidence does not demonstrate the Applicant was not responsible for his misconduct or should not be held accountable for his


actions due to the his mother’s illness or his intoxication. The NDRB determined the awarded discharge was appropriate an d 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 92 and 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

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0901082

    Original file (MD0901082.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entries, and discharge process, the Board found Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall and the narrative reason for separation shall remain .The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing for a period of fifteen years from the date of discharge. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for...

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0900060

    Original file (MD0900060.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801958

    Original file (MD0801958.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant is advised that completion of these items alone does not guarantee the upgrade of an unfavorable discharge, as each discharge is reviewed by the Board on a case by case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member’s overall character.Besides the Applicant DD Form 293, no additional documentation or information was provided. ” Additional Reviews : Subsequent to a document...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801253

    Original file (ND0801253.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board determined the documentation provided by the Applicant did not mitigate the misconduct that resulted in the characterization of discharge 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 statement 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,...

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0900197

    Original file (MD0900197.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: Pertinent Regulation/Law A. Paragraph 6210, MISCONDUCT of the Marine Corps Separation and...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801705

    Original file (MD0801705.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 | 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801453

    Original file (MD0801453.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: Related to Post-Service Period (cont): 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): - Mother’s Outpatient...

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0900156

    Original file (MD0900156.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Violation of Article 112a is one such offense requiring mandatory separation regardless of time in service, grade or record of service. 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, Record, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found ADDENDUM: Information for the Applicant Complaint Procedures : If...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801088

    Original file (ND0801088.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 Entries, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found Pertinent Regulation/Law A. ” 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. ...