Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1100170
Original file (MD1100170.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-, USMC
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20101022
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)       20040709 - 20050612     Active:  

Period of Service Under Review:
 Date of Current Enlistment: 20050613     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Months
Date of Discharge: 20100612      H ighest Rank:
Length of Service : Y ea r ( s ) M on th ( s ) 00 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 66
MOS: 6492
Proficiency/Conduct M arks (# of occasions): /          Fitness Reports:

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      LoA

Periods of UA / CONF :

NJP:

- 20100325 :      Article (Drugs - marijuana 114 ng/ml)
         Awarded: Suspended:

SCM:     SPCM:    CC:

Retention Warning Counseling:

- 20061025 :      For your violation of Article 134. Specifically, on 20061011 while assigned as the ADNCO you were found sitting down on post and neglecting your duties. This violation is in direct conflict with the Core Values of Honor, Courage, and Commitment and is not in keeping with the high standards of the Marine Corps.

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 ”
         “ MARCORSEPMAN 6210.5 ”
         “ MISCONDUCT ”

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:                  Other Documentation:    
                  Additional Statements:
         From Applicant:           From/To Representation:           From/To Congress member:        

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 .



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

Applicant’s Issues

 1.       The Applicant asserts this was his first offense in five years of service .
2 .       The Applicant provided documentation indicating he met all requirements for reenlistment and the type of discharge would be Honorable. He asserts that it was dated on 26 May 2010, two weeks before his EAS and over two months after he was charged with violating Article 112a , suggesting that his discharge was improper and inequitable .
3.       The Applicant asserts that he finished his five-year contract , suggesting that by finishing his contract , he rates an Honorable discharge.
Decision

Date: 20 1 1 1117            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. T he Board c omplete d a thorough review of the circumstances that led to the Applicant’s discharge and the discharge process to ensure discharge met the pertinent standards of equity and propriety. The Applicant’s record of service did include one 6105 counseling warning and one non-judicial punishment (NJP) for violation of the UCMJ : Article ( Wrongful use of controlled substance, 1 specification). The Applicant a pre-service drug waiver for using marijuana prior to entering the Marine Corps, acknowledged complete understanding of the Marine Corps Policy Concerning Illegal Use of Drugs on 7 June 2004 . Based on the Article 112a violation , processing for administ rative separation is mandatory. When notified of a dministrative separation processing , the Applicant rights to consult with a qualified coun sel, submit a written statement , and request an administrative board .

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant asserts the violation of Article 112a was his first offense in five years of service. Despite a service member’s prior record of service, certain serious offenses, even though isolated, warrant separation from the Marine Corps to maintain proper order and discipline. Violation of Article 112a is one such offense requiring mandatory processing for administrative separation regardless of performance, grade, or time in service. Wrongful use of a controlled substance 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. H is 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 the characterization of discharge given others in similar circumstances. Relief denied.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant provided documentation indicating he met all requirements for reenlistment and that the type of discharge w ould be Honorable. He asserts that it was dated on 26 May 2010, two weeks before his EAS and over two months after he was charged with violating Article 112a. The NDRB determined that the documentation the Applicant provided was signed by the career planner, who ha s no authority over assignment of the characterization of service and was not in the Applicant’s chain of command. Evidence found in the Applicant ’ s service record indicates every level within the Applicant’s chain of command recommended that he be discharged with a characterization of Under Other Than Honorable Conditions. On 9 June 2010, Commanding General, 4 th Marine Aircraft Wing, who was the S eparation A uthority, approved the recommendation and directed the Applicant be separated Under Other Than Honorable Conditions. The Board found the disch arge was proper and equitable. Relief denied.

 : (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant asserts that he finished his five-year contract , suggesting that by finishing his contract , he rates an Honorable discharge. The Applicant was officially notified of intended separation on 25 March 2010. On 9 June 2010, Commanding General, 4 th Marine Aircraft Wing, who was the S eparation

A uthority , directed the Applicant be separated within 20 days. Discharge action was completed three days later on 12 June 2010 , the date marking the end of his active service contract . According to regulations, a discharge or separation takes effect at 2359 on the date of the discharge . The Board determined that, although the Applicant was discharged on the date coinciding with the end of his active service contract, all discharge action s w ere approved and completed before 2359 on 12 June 2010 . Therefore, the discharge was proper. Relief 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. The Applicant is directed to the Addendum for additional information.


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 | 2011_Marine | MD1100493

    Original file (MD1100493.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant did not submit any documentation along with the DD Form 293 for the Board to evaluate his post-service character and conduct. 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0902418

    Original file (MD0902418.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant submitted one non-decisional issue and one decisional issue for the Board’s consideration.The Board completed a thorough review of the circumstances that led to discharge and the discharge process to ensure discharge met the pertinent standards of equity and propriety. Based on his career PRO/CON evaluation average, the failure to maintain Marine Corps body composition standards, and the NJP guilty finding for illegal drug use (a serious offense that is eligible for a punitive...

  • USMC | DRB | 2015_Marine | MD1401579

    Original file (MD1401579.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ” 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. 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. If the action includes either a punitive or...

  • USMC | DRB | 2015_Marine | MD1401657

    Original file (MD1401657.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s Request: Characterization change to: Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive: NONE Active: Pre-Service Drug Waiver: 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2002_Marine | MD02-00238

    Original file (MD02-00238.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD02-00238 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020114, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:None PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: None Inactive:...

  • USMC | DRB | 2013_Marine | MD1300044

    Original file (MD1300044.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant contends he warrants an upgrade based on his in-service conduct and the completion of his enlistment. In addition to the Article 112a violation, the record reflects the Applicant was found guilty at NJP twice for Article 92 violations and was pending civil charges for an arrest for selling stolen property in Carlsbad, CA.Based on the Applicant’s record of service, the NDRB determined the Applicant engaged in conduct involving one or more acts or omissions that constituted a...

  • USMC | DRB | 2015_Marine | MD1500428

    Original file (MD1500428.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Additionally, although the Applicant was discharged on the last day of his enlistment, he was still properly discharged Under Other Than Honorable Conditions for Misconduct (Drug Abuse) and not for the Completion of Required Active Service. 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 Notwithstanding, the awarded characterization of service shall change to and the narrative...

  • USMC | DRB | 2012_Marine | MD1201040

    Original file (MD1201040.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: DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD...

  • USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1100118

    Original file (MD1100118.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant wants his discharge upgraded so he can reenlist in the military.2. Relief 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. ”...

  • USMC | DRB | 2007_Marine | MD0700063

    Original file (MD0700063.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Relief denied.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. Elements of Discharge: [INVOLUNTARY] Date Notified: 19990803Basis for Discharge: due to: Least Favorable Characterization: Commanding Officer’s Intended Recommendation: Date Applicant Responded to Notification: 19990803 Rights Elected at Notification:Consult with...