Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1101134
Original file (MD1101134.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-, USMC

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20110329
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)       20030620 - 20040606     Active:  

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20040607     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Months
Date of Discharge: 20090518      H ighest Rank:
Length of Service : Y ea r ( s ) M on th ( s ) 12 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 53
MOS: 6116
Proficiency/Conduct M arks (# of occasions): ( ) / ( )    Fitness R eports:

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

Periods of UA / CONF :

NJP:

- 20051130 :       Article ( Absence without leave - failed to be at appo inted place of duty 20051128 )
         Article (Insubordinate conduct toward a noncommissioned officer)
         Article ( Fail to obey order or regulation - by driving on a suspended license)
         Article (False official statements)
         Awarded : Susp ended:

- 20060117 :      Article ( Fail to obey order or regulation - by w rongfully inhaled compressed air from a can of power duster)
         Awarded : Susp ended:

- 20090109 :      Article ( Absence without leave - failed to be at appointed place of duty 20081217 )
         Awarded : Susp ended:

SCM:     SPCM:    CC:

Retention Warning Counseling :

- 20051202 :       For absence without leave, insubordinate conduct toward an NCO, failure to obey order, and false official statement .

- 20060117 :       For violation of A rticle 92 .

- 20070703 :       For violation of A rticle 123a, w hich is making, drawing and uttering checks, drafts or orders without sufficient funds .

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

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

 “ MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6210.2. ”
“ HKN1 ”

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 .



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

Applicant’s Issues

 1.       The Applicant contends he was wrong fully accused of “huffing” by an officer , which resulted in his Under O ther T han H onorable Conditions discharge and a narrative reason of Misconduct ( D rug A buse ) .

Decision

Date: 20 1 2 03 28            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 Board did complete 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. The Applicant’s record of service included 6105 counseling warnings and for o f the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article ( Absence without leave - failed to be at appointed place of duty, : on 20051128 and 20081217 ), Article ( Insubordinate conduct toward a noncommissioned officer ), Article ( Fail to obey order or regulation - by driving on a suspended license, ), and Article ( False official statements ). 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. When notified of a dministrative separation processing using the procedure, the Applicant rights to consult with a qualified coun sel, submit a written statement , and request an administrative board or a General Court-Martial Convening Authority review.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends he was wrong fully accused of “huffing” by an officer, which resulted in his Under O ther T han H onorable Conditions discharge and a narrative reason of Misconduct ( D rug A buse ) . T he government enjoys a presumption of regularity in the conduct of its affairs. The Applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support his issue. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the Applicant produced any evidence, to support the contention that he was wrongfully accused of “huffing . ” The Applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity in this case. Relief denied.

However, a fter a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entries , and the administrative separation process, the Board determined the Applicant’s primary basis for separation was incorrect . T he Applicant’s primary basis for separation was Misconduct ( Drug Abuse ) , for which he was charged at Squadron NJP on 17 January 2006 for an Article 92 violation for “ h uffing ” compressed air. The Applicant’s correct primary basis for separation should be Misconduct ( Minor Disciplinary Infraction s) . In a letter dated 14 April 2009 from the Commanding Officer, Marine Medium Tiltrotor Training Squadron 204 to the Applicant, he informed the Applicant that he was recommending him for separation from the Marine Corps for Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure, Misconduct (Minor Disciplinary Infractions), and Misconduct (Drug Abuse). On 1 May 2009, t he Separati on Authority approv ed the recommendation for administrative separation of the Applicant, making the primary basis for separation as Misconduct ( Drug Abuse ) . T he NDRB considered this improper because over three years had elapsed since the NJP for the Article 92 “ h uffing ” violation. Clearly, the Applicant’s command intended to retain the Applicant after the “huffing” incident. T he Applicant was allowed to remain in the service during which he s ubsequently accumulate d a nother retention warning counseling on 3 July 2007 and a n NJP on 9 January 2009 for other UCMJ violations. With these additional violations and the violations from earlier in his enlistment , the Applicant met the requirements for separation due to Misconduct (Minor Disciplinary Infractions), and the NDRB determined that this is why the Applicant’s command separated him. Per the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, a Marine must be notified of all bases for separation when being recommended for separation. The Separation Authority then chooses the primary basis for separation after approving the

discharge. Though the NDRB believes the Separation Authority chose the incorrect basis (Misconduct - Drug Abuse) as the primary one, it does not change the fact that the Applicant committed numerous UCMJ violations during his enlistment and warranted an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions characterization of service. The NDRB is convinced that this procedural error was not prejudicial to the Applicant and therefore affords him no relief. The NDRB voted unanimously not to change the characterization of service but to change Blocks 25 and 26 on his DD Form 214 to reflect discharge due to Misconduct (Minor Disciplinary Infractions). The NDRB will recommend to the Commandant of the Marine Corps that the DD Form 214 be corrected as appropriate.
Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, 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

  • NAVY | DRB | 2014_Navy | ND1401509

    Original file (ND1401509.rtf) Auto-classification: 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 . ” 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2013_Marine | MD1300006

    Original file (MD1300006.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 | MD1001726

    Original file (MD1001726.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT Applicant’s Issues 1. The characterization of service received was appropriate considering the length of service and UCMJ violations.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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1100693

    Original file (ND1100693.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The board had no dissenting opinion in this case.On 26 March 2007, after receiving and reviewing the typed record of proceedings of the administrative board, the Applicant’s Commanding Officer forwarded the findings of the board to the Separation Authority via the chain of command as required by Article 1910-704 of the MILPERSMAN. The Separation Authority determined that the evidence of record supported the basis for discharge and that the characterization of service,Under Other Than...

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0901319

    Original file (MD0901319.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE.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. ” 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0902232

    Original file (MD0902232.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The NDRB determined an upgrade would be inappropriate.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. ” Additional Reviews : After a document...

  • USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1100417

    Original file (MD1100417.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    : (Non-decisional) The Applicant wants his discharge upgraded so he can receive veterans’ medical benefits.The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determines eligibility for post-service benefits, not the Naval Discharge Review Board. 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0900065

    Original file (MD0900065.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Record of service. The Board determined the Applicant’s awarded discharge characterization was appropriate and an upgrade founded upon the Applicant’s record of service would be inappropriate.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,...

  • USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1001001

    Original file (MD1001001.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Despite a servicemember’s prior record of service, certain serious offenses, even though isolated, warrant separation from the Naval Service in order to maintain good order and discipline; violation of Article 112a meets this standard.The Applicant signed the Marine Corps Policy Concerning Illegal Use of Drugs on 25 October 2005and received a waiver, for pre-service use of marijuana ten times, during his enlistment accession processing. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has...

  • USMC | DRB | 2007_Marine | MD0700193

    Original file (MD0700193.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Discharge Process Date Notified: 20060118 Basis for Discharge:FRAUDULENT ENTRYCommanding Officer’s Intended Recommendation: ENTRY LEVEL SEPARATIONDate Applicant Responded to Notification:20060118Rights Elected at Notification: Consult with Counsel Obtain Copies of Documents Submit Statement(s) (date) WAIVED Administrative Board Separation Authority (date): COMMANDING OFFICER, SPECIAL TRAINING COMPANY (20060118) Basis for discharge directed: FRAUDULENT ENTRY DUE TO UNDISCLOSED HISTORY OF...