Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0900797
Original file (MD0900797.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-, USMC
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20090223
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)       19941018 - 19950327     Active:  

Period of Service Under Review:
 Date of Enlistment: 19950328     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Months
Date of Discharge: 19980105      H ighest Rank:
Length of Service : Y ea r ( s ) M on th ( s ) 03 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 38
MOS: 6113
Proficiency/Conduct M arks (# of occasions): 4.0 ( 5 ) / 3.8 ( 5 )    Fitness Reports:

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      Rifle

Periods of UA / CONF :

NJP:

- 19950815 :      Article 86 (UA) (19950728 – 19980808 (10 days))
         Awarded: Suspended:

- 19960815 :      Article 112a ( Wrongful use of a controlled substance )
          Awarded: Suspended: (Suspension vacated 19961113)

SCM:

SPCM:

- 19961217 :      Article 112a (Wrongful use of marijuana)
         Sentence: BCD; CONF 45 Days

CC:

Retention Warning Counseling:

- 19950815 :       For NJP for violation of Article 86 .





Types of Documents Submitted/reviewed

 Related to Military Service:
DD 214:      Service / Medical Record: Other Records:
         -Record of trial dated 17 December 1996.

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. Paragraph 1105, DISCHARGE ADJUDGED BY SENTENCE OF COURT-MARTIAL , of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16E), effective 18 August 1995 until 31 August 2001.

 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 (Wrongful use of controlled substances) .


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

Applicant’s Issues

 1. Reenlistment opportunity.
2. Employment opportunity.
3. Personal problems.
4. Post-service conduct.

Decision


 Date: 20 0 9 0514            Location: Washington D.C .         R epresentation :

By a vote of the Characterization shall .
By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall COURT-MARTIAL .
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 paragraphs concerning and , regarding .
: ( ) . The Applicant contends he is entitled to clemency due to personal issues and irresponsibility which contributed to his misconduct. The Applicant’s record of service was marred one retention warning, two NJPs, and one SPCM for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 86 (UA); and Article 112a (Wrongful use or possession of a controlled substance , 2 specifications ). The Applicant signed a Statement of Understanding regarding the Marine Corps Policy Concerning Illegal Use of Drugs on 15 October 1994. The NDRB advises the Applicant certain serious offenses warrant separation 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 . The command did refer the Applicant to a SPCM rather than administra - tively separate him, a nd awarded him 45 days of confinement as part of the sentence. 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 SPCM was based on a second violation of Article 112a and t he Applicant does not further explain what his personal problems were which contributed to his misconduct. T he record does not reflect he was not responsible for his actions or not accountable for his misconduct due to personal issues or irresponsibility. Therefore, the NDRB determined clemency is not warranted.

: ( ) . The Applicant contends he is entitled to clemency due to his post-service conduct. The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in determining if clemency is warranted. However, there is no law or regulation, which provides clemency based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in the 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. Doc umentation to help support post- service conduct clemency, 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; and documentation of a drug-free lifestyle. The Applicant is advised that completion of these items alone does not guarantee clemency of an unfavorable discharge, as each discharge is rev iewed 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.
The Applicant provided statements in his DD Form 293 claiming training and employment. While the Board applaud s the Applicant’s post- service efforts, the Board determined the evidence of post-service conduct wa s not sufficient to warrant clemency. To warrant clemency the Applicant’s post- service efforts need to be more encompassing. The Applicant could have produced additional evidence as stated in the above paragraph with the full understanding completion of these items alone does not guarantee clemency. The NDRB 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 documentation provided clemency would be inappropriate.

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 his court-martial was appropriate for the offense he committed.

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 NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment or educational opportunities. Regulations limit the NDRB ’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 NDRB 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 NDRB 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 | 2008_Marine | MD0800840

    Original file (MD0800840.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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801640

    Original file (MD0801640.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to: Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive: USMCR (DEP)19941229 - 19950815Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 19950816Period of Enlistment: Years MonthsDate of Discharge:19980424Length of Service: Years Months08 DaysEducation Level: Age at Enlistment:AFQT: 33MOS: 0341Highest Rank: Fitness Reports: Proficiency/Conduct Marks (# of occasions): ()/()Awards and Decorations (per DD 214): Rifle...

  • USMC | DRB | 2007_Marine | MD0701224

    Original file (MD0701224.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, Court-Martial proceedings, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found that clemency was not warranted and that the sentence awarded the Applicant at his court-martial was appropriate for the offensesthat he committed. ” Additional Reviews : Subsequent to a document review, former members are eligible for a personal appearance...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801149

    Original file (ND0801149.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant stated his discharge was based on one isolated incident. 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0900198

    Original file (MD0900198.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant is advised that completion of these items alone does not guarantee clemency will be granted, as each discharge is reviewed by the Board on a case by case basis to determine if post service conduct justifies clemency. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700026

    Original file (ND0700026.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In the Applicant’s case, the Board could discern no impropriety or inequity in the Applicant’s discharge based merely on the fact that Applicant was not diagnosed until three years following his discharge and the fact that the applicant was unable to produce medical evaluation from the time the applicant claimed he was treated in 1998 until May of 2007. After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Medical and Service Record Entries,...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801915

    Original file (MD0801915.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant did not provided any documentation or evidence in support of his request and the Board determined that clemency would be inappropriate. The Board determined the characterization of service received, “ Bad Conduct Discharge”, was an appropriate characterization considering the length of service and the UCMJ violations involved, and based on the lack of post service documentation provided, clemency would be inappropriate.Should the Applicant obtain additional evidence or post...

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0901323

    Original file (MD0901323.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Service Record Entries, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found clemency was not warranted and the sentence awarded the Applicant at his court-martial was appropriate for the offenseshe committed. ” Additional Reviews : Subsequent to a document review, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application is received at the...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801685

    Original file (MD0801685.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant provided no documentation or evidence in support of his request for an upgrade and the Board determined the awarded discharge characterization was appropriate; clemency is not warranted.After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Service Record Entries, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found clemency was not warranted and the sentence awarded the Applicant at his court-martial was...

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0902083

    Original file (MD0902083.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Additionally, the NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities. Clemency denied.Issue 4: (Decisional) () . ” 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.