Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0902616
Original file (MD0902616.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-, USMC
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20090928
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)       20031122 - 20040 2 16     Active:  

Period of Service Under Review:
 Date of Current Enlistment: 20040 2 17     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Months
Date of Discharge: 20081224      H ighest Rank:
Length of Service : Y ea r ( s ) M on th ( s ) 08 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 57
MOS: 0411
Proficiency/Conduct M arks (# of occasions): (12) / (12)        Fitness R eports:

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      Rifle (2) (WITH CAMPAIGN STAR) (2)

Periods of UA / CONF :

NJP:

- 20070704 :       Article (Larceny)
         Article 80 (Attempt)
          Awarded: Suspended:

- 20080724 :      Article (False official statement)
         Awarded: Suspended:

- 20081112 :      Article (Failure to obey a lawful order or regulation)
         Article (Drugs - possess marijuana)
         Awarded: Susp ended:

SCM: SPCM:

CC:

Retention Warning Counseling :

- 20081021 :       For misconduct. Specifically , on 20081014 for possession of a controlled substance, marijuana, possession of drug paraphernalia, uninsured vehicle and expired vehicle registration, and on 20081020 for driving on base suspension, and improper child restraints.

- 20081021 :       For failure to obey order by failing to maintain financial responsibility and for wrongfully possessing a controlled substance, to wit: marijuana.

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

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

          “ UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS ”

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:   

Related to Post-Service Period:
         Employment:               Finances:                 Education/Training:     
         Health/Medical Records:           Rehabilitation/Treatment:                  Criminal Records:       
         Personal Documentation :           Community Service:                References:     
         Department of VA letter:                  Oth er Documentation:    
                  Additional Statements :
         From Applicant:            From /To Representation:            From /To Congress m ember :        

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. Fiscal Year 2010 National Defense Authorization Act, Section 512.



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

Applicant’s Issues

 1. His record indicates only minor offenses common to all who suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
2. Should have received a medical discharge or something similar , because he was not medically qualified to serve.
 3. Psychiatric problems impaired his ability to serve.

Decision

 Date: 20 10 1119            Location: Washington D.C .         R epresentation :

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

 The NDRB, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge, is authorized to change the character of service and the reason for discharge if such change is warranted. In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of g overnment al a ffairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the Applicant. The Applicant’s record of service included three 6105 counseling warnings and two nonjudicial punishments for violations o f the Uniform Code of Military Justice : Article 80 ( Attempt to steal items at the Army and Air Force Exchange Service (AAFES) exchange on or about 30 June 2007), Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation, failing to maintain financial responsibility), Article 107 (False official statement, on or about 6 July 2008 , made false statements to the Battalion Duty Noncommissioned O fficer and the O fficer of the D ay concerning his arrest for public intoxication and subsequent incarceration at the Vista jail), Article 112a (Wrongful possession of a controlled substance, marijuana), and Article 121 (Larceny, on 29 June 2007, steal items of a value of about $50.00, the property of the AAFES exchange). The Applicant did not require a pre-service drug waiver for prior to entering the Marine Corps acknowledged his complete understanding of the Marine Corps Policy Concerning Illegal Use of Drugs on 20 November 2003 . Based on the Article 112a violation , processing for administ rative separation is mandatory. The NDRB did not have the Applicant’s administrative separation package to determine whether or not the Applicant waived his rights to consult with a qualified coun sel, submit a written statement , and request an administrative board.

 Issue 1 : (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contend s h is record indicates only minor offenses common to all who suffer from PTSD. The Applicant provided no documentary evidence to support his contention. V iolations of Articles 80, 92, 107, 112a, and 121 are considered serious , not minor , offenses and could have resulted in a punitive discharge (i.e., Bad Conduct) . The command did not pursue a punitive discharge but opted instead for the more lenient administrative discharge. The NDRB found the characterization of the Applicant's discharge was equitable and consistent with others in similar circumstances.
Issue 2: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends he should have received a medical discharge or something similar , because he was not medically qualified to serve. His Chronological Record of Medical Care (CRMC) dated 23 December 2007 noted t he Applicant had an acute laceration to his right small finger , and subsequent visits to the hospital indicated he had ruptured his flexor tendon. In the Applicant’s statement , he stated that he was extended past his end of obligate d service because of the injury and after two surgeries, ended up having to amputate his finger. T he NDRB found no evidence, nor did the Applicant provide any, that he was in the process of being medically separated or processed by the Physical Evaluation Board . However, even if he had been in processing for medical separation, a ppropriate regulations stipulate that separations for misconduct take precedence over potential separations for other reasons. The NDRB determined the Applicant was properly separated by reason of misconduct and not eligible to receive a medical discharge.

Issue 3: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant conten ds his psychiatric problems impaired his ability to serve. The Applicant provided a copy of his Social Security Administration disability case that listed his diagnoses of mood disorder not otherwise specified , PTSD , and alcohol abuse. In the Applicant’s CRMC dated 8 February 2008, the Problems section noted he was diagnosed with adjustment disorder with anxiety, but no psychiatric diagnosis on axis II (developmental & personality disorders) or III (physical conditions), and this did not change per his CRMC dated 8 July 2008. In his statement, the Applicant stated that after his finger was amputated, “I lost all ability to be happy, motivated, or positive at all. During my medical extension I found myself in new trouble every time I turned around. This is when I started seeing the mental health department in Camp Pendleton.” While the Applicant may feel his psychiatric problems impaired his ability to serve, the NDRB found no evidence , nor did the Applicant provide any, to indicate his psychiatric problems were present while in the military. The NDRB determined the Applicant’s psychiatric problems did not impair his ability to serve.

Effective 28 January 2008, combat veterans discharged from active duty on or after 28 January 2003 are eligible for combat veteran enhanced eligibility and enrollment placement into Priority Group 6 (unless eligible for higher enrollment Priority Group placement) for 5 years post discharge. The Applicant, as a combat veteran, is encouraged to contact the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for more information. The VA's phone number is 1-877-222-VETS (8387) and their website is http://www4.va.gov/healtheligibility/Library/pubs/CombatVet/CombatVet.pdf.

Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, and medical 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. The Applicant is directed to the Addendum, specifically the paragraphs titled Additional Reviews, Automatic Upgrades, and Post-Service Conduct .

This case was processed and adjudicated in accordance with Section 512 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010.


ADDENDUM: Information for the Applicant

 Complaint Procedures : If you believe 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 : 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. 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. There are veterans organizations such as the American Legion and the Disable d American Veterans that are willing to provide guidance to former service members in their efforts to obtain a discharge upgrade. If a former member has been discharged for more than 15 years, has already been granted a personal appearance hearing or has otherwise exhausted their 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 U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determines eligibility for post-service benefits, not the NDRB. 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.
Employment/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 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 is processed subsequently for an administrative involuntary separation or is referred to a court martial for misconduct, the disability evaluation is suspended pending the outcome of the non-disability proceedings. If the action includes either a punitive or administrative discharge for misconduct or for any basis wherein an Other Than Honorable discharge is authorized, 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 BCNR can grant this type of narrative reason change.

 Automatic Upgrades - There is no law or regulation that provides for an unfavorable discharge to be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct subsequent to leaving naval service.
Post-Service Conduct : The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. 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. Documentation to support a post-service conduct upgrade includes, but is not limited to: a verifiable continuous employment record; marriage and children’s birth certificates (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 at or completion of higher education (official transcripts); and documentation of 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 in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member’s overall character.

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 | 2009_Marine | MD0902247

    Original file (MD0902247.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. For additional information, call 1-877-222-VETS (8387).This case was processed and adjudicated in accordance with Section 512 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, medical and record entries, and discharge process, the Board found Therefore, the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2014_Navy | ND1401167

    Original file (ND1401167.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant wants an upgrade of his discharge for education and employment opportunities.2. By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall .Discussion The NDRB, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge, is authorized to change the character of service and the reason for discharge if such change is warranted.In reviewing discharges, the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1201912

    Original file (ND1201912.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Representation: By a vote of the Characterization shall .By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall .Discussion The NDRB, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge, is authorized to change the character of service and the reason for discharge if such change is warranted.In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include...

  • USMC | DRB | 2013_Marine | MD1300639

    Original file (MD1300639.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. ” 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. Additionally, the NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2014_Navy | ND1400322

    Original file (ND1400322.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Relief denied.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entriesand 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1000261

    Original file (MD1000261.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall .Discussion The NDRB, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge, is authorized to change the character of service and the reason for discharge if such change is warranted. Relief denied.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, medical and record entries, and discharge process, the Board found Therefore, the awarded characterization of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1101851

    Original file (ND1101851.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.Applicant seeks a discharge upgrade to reenlist in the U.S. Armed Forces.2. The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of service, reflects the Applicant’s willful failure to meet the requirements of conduct expected of all Sailors, especially considering his grade, experience and total length of service, and falls short of what is...

  • USMC | DRB | 2015_Marine | MD1500097

    Original file (MD1500097.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. Based on the Article 112a violation, processing for administrative separation is mandatory. ” 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.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1201513

    Original file (ND1201513.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. ” 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. Additionally, the NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities.

  • USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1001730

    Original file (MD1001730.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PARTIAL RELIEF WARRANTED.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, andmedical record entries, and administrative 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...