Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2013_Marine | MD1300325
Original file (MD1300325.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-, USMC
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20121203
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)       20050810 - 20060611     Active:  

Pre-Service Drug Waiver:

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20060612     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Months
Date of Discharge: 20110328      H ighest Rank:
Length of Service : Y ea rs M on ths 17 D a ys
Education Level:        AFQT: 67
MOS: 0651
Proficiency/Conduct M arks (# of occasions): ( ) / ( )    Fitness R eports:

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

Periods of UA / CONF :

NJP:

- 20081203 :       Article (Larceny and wrongful appropriation ; wrongfully used a credit card, property of LCpl M___ )
         Awarded: Suspended: (1 month) (Restriction waived and will end upon deployment)

- 20090724 :      Article (False o fficial s tatement , made a false statement regarding the procurement of a knife )
         Article (Larceny and wrongful appropriation , stole a knife )
         Awarded: Suspended:

- 20110302 :      Article (Wrongful use, possession, etc. of controlled substances , THC )
         Awarded : Susp ended:

SCM:     SPCM:    CC:

Retention Warning Counseling :

- 20090724 :       For violation of Article s 107 and 121 (False o fficial s tatement and Larceny).

- 20090804 :       For your recent NJP 20081212 in which you were found to be in violation of A rticle 121. You were found guilty of using another Marine ’ s ATM card.




- 20100812 :       For failure to pass an annual Physical Fitness Test between the dates of 20100101 and 20100630. Specifically , you failed to meet the passing number of correct pull-ups by only performing 2 and also failed the 3 mile run portion of the PFT with a run time of 32:46. Additionally you are being assigned to the Body Composition Program for failure to maintain height/weight standards. Specifically , your height of 70 inches has a max weight of 191 lbs, your weight was recorded at 208 lbs with a body fat percentage of 26% .

- 20110216 :       For violation of Article 92 ( V iolation or failure to obey lawful order or regulation) of the UCMJ.

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

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

          “ 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:                  Oth er Documentation:    
                  Additional Statements :
         From Applicant:            From /To Representation:            From /To Congress m ember :        

Pertinent Regulation/Law

 A. Paragraph 6210, MISCONDUCT of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16 F ), 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 II, Para 211, Regularity of Government Affairs , Part V, Para 502, Propriety and Para 503, Equity .

C. The Manual for Courts-Martial authorizes the award of a punitive discharge if adjudged as part of the sentence upon conviction by a special or general court-martial for violation of the UCMJ, Article s 107, 112a, 121, and 128 .



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

Applicant’s Issues

 1.       The Applicant contends h e was found not guilty for the civilian charges that led to his discharge.
2 .       The Applicant contends Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) mitigates his misconduct.

Decision

 D ate: 20 1 3 1001            Location: Washington D.C .         R epresentation :

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

 As a result of the Applicant’s claim of PTSD , in accordance with U.S. Code, Title X, Section 1553 (d)(1), the Naval Discharge Review Board included a member who is a physician, clinical psychologist, or psychiatrist. In accordance with section 1553 (d)(2), the service secretary expedited a final decision and accorded the case sufficient priority to achieve an expedited resolution. A review of the Applicant’s records reveals that he deployed to Iraq in support of Operation IRAQI FREEDOM.

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 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, for o f the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 121 ( Larceny and wrongful appropriation, 2 specifications), Article 107 ( False official statement ), and Article 112a ( Wrongful use, possession, etc. of controlled substances , THC) , and one civil arrest for assault on a child under 12, contributing to the deliquiquency of a minor, and misdemeanor child abuse, all of which the Applicant was subsequently found not guilty of in Onslow County Court on 11 January 2012 . The Applicant acknowledged complete understanding of the Marine Corps Policy Concerning Illegal Use of Drugs on 8 August 2005 . Based on the offense s committed by the Applicant, command administratively processed for separation. When notified of a dministrative separation processing using the procedure, the Applicant waived rights to consult with a qualified counsel, submit a written statement, and request an administrative board .

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends he was found not guilty for the civilian charges that led to his discharge. In reviewing cases, the NDRB is not bound by decisions of the civilian courts subsequent to the Applicant’s discharge. However, such information can be and was considered by the NDRB in making a determination as to the equity of the characterization of service. The commission of a serious offense does not require adjudication by nonjudicial, judicial proceedings, or civilian conviction, however, the offense must be substantiated by a preponderance of evidence. The Applicant was notified of separation due to commission of a serious offense as evidenced by his civilian arrest o n 8 March 2011 . His separation notification also noted that he was facing civilian charges for illegal drug use. The evidence of record also reflects the Applicant was found guilty at nonjudicial punishment for violations of UCMJ Articles 121 (Larceny, 2 specifications ) , 107 (False official statement), and 112a (Wrongful use, possession, etc. of controlled substance, THC) , all of which are considered serious offenses per the Manual for Courts-Martial and warrant administrative separation processing . Violation of Article 112a requires mandatory processing for separation and 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 Applicant was provided the opportunity to present his case before an administrative board, but waived that right, thus accepting the discharge recommended in the letter of notification. Relief denied.





: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends PTSD mitigates his misconduct. The Applicant’s mother submitted a letter that claims the Applicant suffers from PTSD as a result of his deployment to Iraq. The 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. T he NDRB did not find any reference to a medical diagnosis of PTSD in the Applicant’s service record to support t his claim, and the Applicant did not provide any documentary evidence of a medical diagnosis by competent medical authorities to support t his claim. Though the Applicant may feel that PTSD was the underlying cause of his misconduct, the record reflects willful misconduct that demonstrated he was unfit for further service. The evidence of record did not show that the Applicant was either not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions. The NDRB determined PTSD did not mitigate his misconduct and further determined his discharge was warranted, proper, and equitable. 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), 701 South Courthouse Road, Suite 1001, Arlington, VA 22204-2490 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 | 2012_Marine | MD1200948

    Original file (MD1200948.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Additionally, while inservice, he received punishment at two separate NJPs for making false official statements, larceny, misbehavior of a sentinel, and wrongful use of controlled substances. Additionally, support is available by phone at: 1-877-222-VETS (8387).Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entries, and the punitive discharge process, the Board found Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1200801

    Original file (ND1200801.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Commander, Navy Personnel Command reviewed the Applicant’s record of service and ordered the Applicant to be discharged Under Other Than Honorable Conditions for Misconduct (Serious Offense). The NDRB is not authorized to make a discharge characterization of service more unfavorable and so determined the Under Other Than Honorable Conditions was equitable and does not warrant an upgrade based upon his violation of UCMJ Articles 107, 112a, and 121. ” Additional Reviews : After a document...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900558

    Original file (ND0900558.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT Applicant’s Issues 1. 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 previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member’s overall character.Besides the Applicants...

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0901154

    Original file (MD0901154.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Furthermore, the NDRB found documentation that the Applicant withheld pertinent information with regards to his pre-service history of anxiety and additional drug usage besides marijuana upon enlistment.In verifying the Applicant’s PTSD, the NDRB found in the Applicant’s PDHA of 27 September 2005, that there was nothing noted by the Applicant or the Health Care Provider to suggest a referral or an additional follow-up appointment was required. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review...

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0900133

    Original file (MD0900133.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: Substance Abuse: Criminal Records: Family/Personal Status: Community Service: References: Additional Statements:From Applicant:From Representation: From Congress member: Other Documentation: DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0701074

    Original file (ND0701074.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to:Narrative Reason change to: Applicant’s Issues:1. Additionally, the Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities. ” Only the Board for Correction of Naval Records can grant this type of narrative reason change.

  • USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1100281

    Original file (MD1100281.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. Relief denied.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entries and the administrative separation process, the Board found the discharge was proper and equitable at the time of discharge.However, based on Applicant and witness testimony, and the evidence presented at the hearing, the awarded...

  • USMC | DRB | 2014_Marine | MD1401466

    Original file (MD1401466.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 remain UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS and the narrative reason for separation shall remain MISCONDUCT. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application is received...

  • USMC | DRB | 2015_Marine | MD1500626

    Original file (MD1500626.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

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

  • USMC | DRB | 2007_Marine | MD0700070

    Original file (MD0700070.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After a thorough review of the Applicant’s record, issues submitted, and post service accomplishments, the Board determined that clemency was not warranted and that the sentence awarded the Applicant at his court-martial, as approved, was appropriate for the offenses he committed.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. ...