Upgrade.Vet

USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1001818

Original file (MD1001818.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-, USMC

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20100713

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)       19991028 - 20000820     Active:

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20000821     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Months
Date of Discharge: 20061205      H ighest Rank:
Length of Service : Y ea rs M on th 03 D a ys
Education Level:        AFQT: 45
MOS: 6153
Proficiency/Conduct M arks (# of occasions): ( 6 ) / ( 6 )          Fitness Reports:
Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      Rifle NDSM SSDR LoA MM

Periods of UA :

NJP: NONE        SCM: NONE        CC:      Retention Warning Counseling : None

SPCM:
- 20030 520 :       Art icle (Wrongful use possession, etc o f a controlled substance ; 7 separate uses of Methamphetamine s )
         Sentence : , FOP , CONF 90 days (20030520 – 20030801, 74 days served ) ,

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. 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 .

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

Applicant’s Issues

1.       Nondecisional issues: The Applicant seeks an upgrade in the characterization of his service received at discharge in order to facilitate access to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) educational benefits.

2.       Decisional issues: The Applicant contends that he was young and immature at the time of his misconduct and seeks clemency in the review of h is discharge characterization.

Decision

Date: 20 1 1 110 4 Location: Washington D.C .       R epresentation :

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

Discussion

In reviewing discharges, the NDRB 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. 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 that reduces the severity of the punishment imposed. 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. The Applicant ’ s case was considered under the pertinent standards of equity to determine if any factors in this particular case merited clemency.

The Applicant’s service record indicates he entered military service at age 17 (with parental consent) on a 4-year enlistment contract under an Aviation Mechanic Training g uarantee. The Applicant’s enlistment record reflects his entry into military service with a pre-service waiver for illegal drug use (marijuana). The Applicant acknowledged his complete understanding of the Marine Corps Policy Concerning Illegal Use of Drugs on 2 7 October 199 9 as a function of his application for waiver with the Recruiting Station Commanding Officer regarding the Applicant’s pre-service illegal drug use. The highest rank achieved by the Applicant during his enlistment was Lance Corporal \ E-3.

The Applicant’s period of service under review reflects punitive punishment as adjudged by a trial by S pecial C ourt -M artial convened between 12 March and 20 May 2003. The Applicant was subject to Special Court - Martial for alleged violation s of Article 112(a) (Wrongful use, possession, etc of controlled substance - 2 specifications , covering 8 specified uses of methamphetamines ) . A qualified legal defense counsel represented him during his trial by Special Court-Martial. In accordance with a signed pre-trial agreement, the Applicant agreed to request trial by military judge alone and further elected to plead guilty to the specifications of violation of Article 112(a) with substitution of word ing as agreed to in pre-trial motions and provide a written stipulation to the facts of his plea of guilty. In consideration, the Convening Authority withdrew the excepted wording and agreed to limit any adjudged period of confinement to no more than 1 60 days if a B ad Conduct Discharge (B CD ) was adjudged . Given the facts of the case, the trial judge awarded the Applicant a Bad Conduct Discharge, order ed that he be confined for a period of 90 days, ordered a forfeiture of pay, and reduced the Applicant in rank to Private /E-1 . The case was submitted for review with assignment of error (right to speedy trail, appellate review) to the U.S. Navy–Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals; it was reviewed and the findings were affirmed on 30 August 2006 . Subsequently, the Navy Marine Corps Appellate Leave Activity ordered the Bad Conduct Discharge executed and the Applicant was discharge d on 05 December 2006 .

(Nondecisional Issue) The Applicant seeks an upgrade in the characterization of his service at discharge from Bad Conduct to General (Under Honorable Conditions) in order to facilitate access to V A b enefits (health and education). There is no requirement, or law, that grants re-characterization solely on the issue of obtaining veterans health and educational benefits. Additionally, the NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment o pportunities or facilitating employment opportunities . With respect to a Bad Conduct Discharge, regulations limit the NDRB’s review solely to a determination of clemency in consideration of the equity of the discharge. As such, this issue does not serve to provide a foundation upon which the NDRB can grant relief.

(Decisional Issues) (Clemency/Equity) – CLEMENCY NOT WARRANTED. The Applicant contends that he was young and immature at the time of his misconduct and seeks clemency in the review of his discharge characterization. T he NDRB conducted a thorough review of the Applicant’s discharge under the pertinent standard of equity to determine if any factors in this particular case merited clemency. 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 .

The NDRB recognizes that many of our service members are young at the time they enlist for service, but most manage to serve honorably. While it is underst ood that some members may be less mature than others, the NDRB does not view a member’s youthfulness to be a mitigating factor or a sufficient reason for misconduct, especially r epetitive misconduct involving drugs . The NDRB determined that the Applicant’s youth or immaturity was not a mitigating factor in this case. Certain serious offenses warrant separation from the service to maintain proper order and discipline. Violation of Article 112a is one such offense requiring mandatory processing for separation , regardless of grade or time in service. This action usually results in an administrative separation and 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. In the Applicant’s case, t he command opted to pursue the punitive discharge process instead of the more lenient administrative discharge.

The Applicant was charged with 10 uses of methamphetamines ( three uses were later removed from the charges pursuant to the p re-trial a greement) . The c ommand determined this repetitive misconduct to be willful and deliberate . To compound matters, after being arraigned on the charges by the Military Judge, but while awaiting the start of the trial, the Applicant failed a command urinalysis in which his sample tested positive for methamphetamines. T he NDRB found the evidence of record did not contain sufficient mitigating or extenuating factors to offset the seriousness of the offenses for which the discharge was awarded. Given the illegal use of a controlled substance , in violation of Federal and State laws , Department of Defense Regulations, M arine Corps Policy , and service ethos, coupled with the repetitive and deliberate nature of th at misconduct, the NDRB agreed unanimously that the punishment, as awarded, was equitable , and that relief in the form of clemency was not warranted. Accordingly, relief is denied.

Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entries, the verbatim record of trial, and the discharge process, the NDRB determined that Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall BAD CONDUCT DISCHARGE 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 and Post-Service Conduct .

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 | 2010_Marine | MD1001779

Original file (MD1001779.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The NDRB conducted a thorough review of the Applicant’s discharge under the pertinent standards of equity to determine if any factors in this particular case merited clemency. Accordingly, relief is denied Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entries, the verbatim transcript record of trial by Special Court-Martial, and the discharge process, the NDRB determined that Therefore, the awarded characterization of...
USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1100206

Original file (MD1100206.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant’s enlistment record reflects his entry into military service with a waiver to enlistment and induction standards for pre-service illegal drug use (marijuana) and for exceeding the Marine Corps height/weight standards. Issue 2: (Decisional) (Clemency/Equity)CLEMENCY NOT WARRANTED. ” 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...
USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1100322

Original file (MD1100322.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: Rehabilitation/Treatment: Criminal Records: Personal Documentation: Community Service: References: Department of VA letter: Other Documentation: Additional Statements:From Applicant: From/To Representation:From/ToCongress member: Pertinent Regulation/Law A.Paragraph 1105, DISCHARGE...
USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1100546

Original file (MD1100546.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: Rehabilitation/Treatment: Criminal Records: Personal Documentation: Community Service: References: Department of VA letter: Other Documentation: Additional Statements:From Applicant: From/To Representation:From/ToCongress member: Pertinent Regulation/Law A. Paragraph 1105, DISCHARGE...
USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1001959

Original file (MD1001959.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: Rehabilitation/Treatment: Criminal Records: Personal Documentation: Community Service: References: Department of VA letter: Other Documentation: Additional Statements:From Applicant: From/To Representation:From/ToCongress member: Pertinent Regulation/Law A.Paragraph 1105, DISCHARGE...
NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1000475

Original file (ND1000475.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.Nondecisional issues: The Applicant seeks clemency in the form of an upgrade to a General (Under Honorable Conditions) characterization of his service at discharge in order to be eligible to receive Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical benefits for himself and his family. On 29 March 1995, the Navy and Marine Corps Appellate Leave Activity ordered the Bad Conduct...
USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1100024

Original file (MD1100024.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues Nondecisional Issues: The Applicant seeks clemency in requesting an upgrade in the characterization of his service at discharge and a change in his reenlistment code (RE-Code) in order to facilitate reenlistment in the Armed Forces.Decisional Issues: The Applicant believes his post-service conduct is worthy of consideration. Decisional Issue (Clemency/Equity) CLEMENCY NOT...
USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1100057

Original file (MD1100057.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Given the facts of the case, the military trial judge awarded the Applicant a Bad Conduct Discharge and confinement for a period of 100 days. ” 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 | 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 | ND1001243

Original file (ND1001243.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Given the facts of the case, the trial judge awarded the Applicant a Bad Conduct Discharge and confinement for a period of 100 days. Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entries, the verbatim transcript record of trial by Special Court-Martial, and the discharge process, the NDRB determined that Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall BAD CONDUCT DISCHARGE and the narrative reason for separation...

Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1001818

Similar Decisions