Upgrade.Vet

USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1101935

Original file (MD1101935.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-, USMC

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20110815

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)       20080826 - 20081102     Active:

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20081103     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Months
Date of Discharge: 20100803      H ighest Rank:
Length of Service : Y ea r ( s ) M on th ( s ) 1 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 79
MOS: 0481
Proficiency/Conduct M arks (# of occasions): ( ) / ( )    Fitness R eports:

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      Rifle LoA

Periods of UA / CONF :

Time lost Per DD 214 : 20100322 - 20100408, 18 days

NJP:

- 20100305 :       Article (Wrongful use, possession controlled substances, MDMA)
         Awarded: Suspended:

SCM:

- 20100409 :       Art icle (Wrongful use of methylenedioxy methamphetamine, schedule I controlled substance)
         Sentence :

SPCM:    CC:               Retention Warning Counseling :

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 :

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

Applicant’s Issues

1.       Applicant contends the misconduct was an isolated event in an otherwise honorable period of service.
2.       Applicant contends misconduct was due to undue pressure from his fire team leader .
3.       Post-service conduct.

Decision

Date: 20 1 2 0517          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 identif ied t hree decisional issues to the Board. T he NDRB 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 for o f the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article ( Wrongful use, possession, etc. of controlled substances , ) and for of the UCMJ: Article ( Wrongful use, possession, etc. of controlled substances , ). 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 rights to consult with a qualified coun sel, submit a written statement , and request an administrative board . However, the Applicant’s DD Form 214 reflected a Separation Code of HKK, indicating he waived his right to an administrative board review.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends the misconduct was an isolated event in an otherwise honorable period of service. 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 administrative separation regardless of grade , performance, or time in service. This 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. The command did not pursue a punitive discharge but opted instead for the more lenient administrative discharge , despite two violations of UCMJ Article 112a . Relief denied.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends misconduct was due to undue pressure from his fire team leader . While the Applicant may feel undue pressure was the underlying cause of his misconduct, the record clearly reflects his willful misconduct and demonstrated he was unfit for further service. The evidence of record does not demonstrate the Applicant was not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions. The Applicant was found guilty of two separate violations of UCMJ Article 112a. He knew the use of illegal drugs was prohibited and using the drugs because of pressure from his superior does not excuse the behavior. Relief denied.

Issue 3: (Decisional) (Equity) RELIEF NOT WARRANTED. The Applicant submitted three letters of character reference. The NDRB considers 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. The Applicant could have provided documentation as detailed in the Post-Service Conduct paragraph in the Addendum , however, completion of these items alone does not guarantee an upgrade from an unfavorable discharge as each discharge is reviewed by the Board on a case by case basis to determine if post-service conduct establishes that the in-service misconduct was an aberration. To warrant an upgrade, the Applicant’s post-service efforts need to be more encompassing. T he Board determined that the documentation submitted by the Applicant does not demonstrate if in-service misconduct was an aberration. The characterization of service received was appropriate considering the length of service and UCMJ violations. 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.

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 .

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 | 2008_Navy | ND0801608

Original file (ND0801608.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Based on the aforementioned evidence of drug abuse the Board determined the separation and characterization of service to be proper and the evidence of inservice performance was not sufficient to mitigate the misconduct committed by the Applicant and the awarded discharge was appropriate. 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:...
USMC | DRB | 2013_Marine | MD1301499

Original file (MD1301499.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Relief denied.Issue 2: (Decisional) (Equity) RELIEF NOT WARRANTED. 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. ” Additional...
NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0800175

Original file (ND0800175.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Applicant’s Request: Characterization change to: Narrative Reason change to: Applicant’s Issues 1. Types of Documents SubmittedRelated 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...
USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1100712

Original file (MD1100712.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant contends his record of service and character warrants a higher characterization of service. The characterization of service received was appropriate considering it was based on a blatant violation of MarineCorps policy concerning the illegal use of drugs, particularly after the Applicant had been given a second chance after failing to reveal prior illegal drug use during enlistment into the Marine Corps.Relief denied.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence,...
USMC | DRB | 2015_Marine | MD1500764

Original file (MD1500764.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. The Applicant could have provided documentation as detailed in the Post-Service Conduct paragraph in the Addendum ; however, completion of these items alone does not guarantee an upgrade from an unfavorable discharge as each discharge is reviewed by the Board on a case by case basis to determine if post-service conduct establishes that the in-service misconduct was an...
NAVY | DRB | 2014_Navy | ND1400608

Original file (ND1400608.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/To Congress member: DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD...
NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1201162

Original file (ND1201162.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/To Congress member: DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD...
NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0901389

Original file (ND0901389.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to: Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive:USNR (DEP)19991221 - 19991228Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 19991229Age at Enlistment:Period of Enlistment: YearsExtensionDate of Discharge:20011213Highest Rank/Rate:FNLength of Service: Year(s)Month(s)14 Day(s)Education Level:AFQT: 42EvaluationMarks:Performance:2.6(3)Behavior:2.3(3)OTA: 2.66Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):Periods of UA/CONF:...
NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900643

Original file (ND0900643.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

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 of DoD Instruction 1332.28, you may submit a complaint in accordance with...
NAVY | DRB | 2015_Navy | ND1500950

Original file (ND1500950.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant may consider re-applying for an upgrade through a Personal Appearance Hearing in order to inform the board of all the details relating to his misconduct by providing documentation of his misconduct and administrative separation. 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 remain UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE...

Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1101935

Similar Decisions