Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0900396
Original file (MD0900396.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-, USMC
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20081205
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)     19910308 - 19910319     Active:   19910320 - 19950112
                           19950113 - 19991219
                           19991220 - 20030504
Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment: 20030505     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Months
Date of Discharge: 20060119      H ighest Rank:
Length of Service : Y ea r ( s ) M on th ( s ) 15 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 85
MOS: 3537
Proficiency/Conduct M arks (# of occasions): NA   Fitness R eports:

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      Rifle (2) (4) (4)
         (2)

Periods of UA / CONF :

NJP:

SCM:

SPCM:

- 20040823 :      Article Article 112a ( Methamphetamine use)
         Sentence : BCD; RIR E-1; FOP; REPRIMAND;CONF 30 Days ( 20040824-20040915 (22 Days))

CC:

Retention Warning Counseling :

The NDRB did note administrative error(s) on the original DD Form 214:

         “ CONTINUOUS HONORABLE ACTIVE SERVICE FROM 19910320 UNTIL 20030504 ”

The NDRB will recommend to the Commandant of the Marine Corps that the DD 214 be corrected as appropriate.





Types of Documents Submitted/reviewed

 Related to Military Service:
DD 214:      Service / Medical Record: Other Records:
         Record of trial dated 23 August 2004.

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 of misconduct.
2. U.S Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) diagnosis of Post- Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD ) .

Decision

 Date: 20 0 9 0312            Location: Washington D.C .         R epresentation :

By a vote of the Characterization shall .
By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall COURT-MARTIAL .
Discussion

 : ( ) . The Applicant contends she is entitled to clemency due to her record of service. In response to the Applicant’s clemency request, relevant and material facts stated in a court-martial specification are presumed by the NDRB to be established facts. With respect to a discharge adjudged by a court-martial case, the action of the NDRB is restricted to upgrades based on clemency. Clemency is an act of leniency which reduces the severity of the punishment imposed. The Applicant’s record of service was marred by one SPCM for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 112a (Wrongful use or possession of a controlled substance). The NDRB advises the Applicant certain serious offenses , even though isolated, warrant sepa ration from the service 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 Applicant was given an SPCM and awarded a Bad Conduct discharge. The NDRB determined clemency is not warranted.

: ( ) . The Applicant contends she is entitled to clemency due to her diagnosis by the VA with PTSD. In support of this Issue, the Applicant submitted documentation showing the VA considers her service as honorable and is providing treatment and disability pay. The Applicant should understand the VA’s determination of honorable service is only meaningful in determining eligibility to VA benefits; the VA determination is not binding on the Marine Corps. Furthermore, the record of evidence shows the Applicant was evaluated by competent medical authorities on 11 August 2004 (prior to her SPCM) who specifically stated t he Applicant was not suffering from PTSD symptoms. The NDRB therefore rejects the Applicant contention; clemency is not warranted.

 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 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. Docum entation to help support a post- service conduct upgrade includes, but is not limited to: a verifiable continuous employment record; marriage and children’s birth certificate (if applicable); character witness statements; 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 companies, or other financial institutions; attendance or completion of higher education (official transcripts); and documentation of alcohol non-dependency and a drug - free lifestyle. 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.

While the Board applauds the Applicant's post-service efforts, she provided no documented evidence of it. Consequently, the Board determined the evidence of post-service conduct was not sufficient enough to war rant clemency of her discharge characterization. The Applicant could have produced additional evidence as stated in the above paragraph with the full understanding completion of these items alo ne does not guarantee clemency . The Board determined the characterization of service received, “Bad Conduct Discharge, ” was an appropriate characterization considering the length of service and the UCMJ violation involved , and based on the limited post- service d ocumentation provided clemency would be inappropriate.

Should the Applicant obt ain additional evidence or post- service documentation s he may wish to apply for a personal appearance. There are veteran's organizations, such as the American Legion, willing to provide guidance to former service members in their efforts to obtain clemency .

After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Service and Medical Record Entries, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, t he Board found clemency was not warranted and the sentence awarded the Applicant at her court-martial was appropriate for the offense s she committed.


Pertinent Regulation/Law

 A. Paragraph 1105, DISCHARGE ADJUDGED BY SENTENCE OF COURT-MARTIAL , of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16F), effective 1 September 2001 until Present.

 B. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part IV, Para 403m(7)(a), Presumption Concerning Court-Martial Specifications .

C. 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 .

D. 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 | 2008_Navy | ND0800608

    Original file (ND0800608.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board determined that the documentation provided by the Applicant did not mitigate the misconduct resulted in 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 evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found that Relief was not warranted in this case. ” Additional Reviews : Subsequent to a document review, former members are eligible for a personal appearance...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900267

    Original file (ND0900267.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. If a former member has been discharged for more than 15 years, has already been granted 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1100364

    Original file (MD1100364.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Based on the documented evidence of record, the NDRB determined that the Applicant’s misconduct of record was not an isolated incident, that separation was warranted, and that the characterization of service as adjudged, was appropriate. The NDRB conducted a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s pre-service drug waiver, Summary of Service and Service Record Entries, medical records, verbatim transcript of the Special Court-Martial proceeding, and the overall...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1000218

    Original file (ND1000218.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to: Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive:USNR (DEP)19880426 - 19880508Active: 19880509 - 19880524 ELS USNR 19990727 - 19990929 HON Period of Service Under Review: Date of Current Enlistment: 19990930Age at Enlistment:Period of Enlistment: YearsExtensionDate of Discharge:20040604Highest Rank/Rate:AD3Length of Service: Year(s)Month(s)04 Day(s)Education Level:AFQT: 42EvaluationMarks:Performance:NFIRBehavior:NFIROTA:...

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0900071

    Original file (MD0900071.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Record of service. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900964

    Original file (ND0900964.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    ex-AMAN, USN Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request Application Received: 20090310 Characterization of Service Received: Narrative Reason for Discharge: Authority for Discharge: MILPERSMAN Applicant’s Request: Characterization change to: Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive: USNR (DEP) 19990902 - 19990920 Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 19990909 Age at Enlistment: Period of Enlistment: Years Extension Date of Discharge:...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900637

    Original file (ND0900637.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant contends she is entitled to a discharge upgrade in her characterization to “Honorable”, due to her post service conduct. 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 the discharge was proper and equitable at the time of discharge;however, based upon the fact a single error in judgment was made, the Board finds this to be mitigated by...

  • USMC | DRB | 2015_Marine | MD1500355

    Original file (MD1500355.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. The Applicant could have provided documentation as detailed in the Post-Service Conduct paragraph in the Addendum with the recognition that 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 establishes that the in-service misconduct...

  • 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,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900041

    Original file (ND0900041.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Specifically, she contends the misconduct which led to her separation was a panicked response to threatened charges against her for illegal activities committed by her husband. The Board found the Applicant’s claims of mitigating circumstances were without merit and determined the awarded discharge characterization was appropriate for the offenses committed and an upgrade would be inappropriate.After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service,...