Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2013_Marine | MD1300790
Original file (MD1300790.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-, USMC
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20130219
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)       20091008 - 20090714     Active:  

Period of Service Under Review:
 Date of Current Enlistment: 20090715     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Months
Date of Discharge: 20120210      H ighest Rank:
Length of Service : Y ea r ( s ) M on th ( s ) 26 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 67
MOS: 6153
Proficiency/Conduct M arks (# of occasions): ( ) / ( )    Fitness Reports:

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      Rifle

Periods of CONF :

NJP:

- 20101215 :      Article (Failure to obey order or regulation - underage drinking)
         Awarded: Suspended:

- 20111104 :      Article (Absence without leave - failed to report on time for pretrial restriction muster)
         Article (Failure to obey order or regulation - consuming alcohol under the age of 21 and directly ordered not to do so on two different occasions , 2 specifications )
         Awarded: Suspended: Suspension vacated 20111119

SCM:     SPCM:    CC:

Retention Warning Counseling:

- 20101215 :      For your violation of Article 92 resulting in NJP on 20101215.

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. Paragraph 6210, MISCONDUCT , 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 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 her misconduct was due to a delay in receiving alcohol treatment and a poor military attitude concerning drinking disorders.
2.       The Applicant contends her post-service conduct is worthy of an upgrade.

Decision

Date: 20 1 3 1219            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 P ost-Traumatic Stress Disorder (P TSD ) , 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. The Naval Discharge Review Board reviewed the Applicant ’ s record to see if she deployed in support of a contingency operation and was, as a consequence of that deployment, diagnosed with either PTSD or T raumatic Brain Injury . A review of her record revealed that while she briefly deployed in support of Operation ENDURING FREEDOM while escorting critical parts to her deployed unit in 2011 , her diagnos is of PTSD was n ot a consequence of her deployment or military duties .
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 warning and for o f the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 86 ( Absence without leave , 1 specific ation ) and Article 92 ( Failure to obey order or regulation , 3 specific ation s). Based on the offenses committed by the Applicant, command administratively processed for separation. When notified of a dministrative separation processing using the procedure, the Applicant exercised her rights to consult with a qualified counsel and submit a written statement, but waived right to request an administrative board.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends her misconduct was due to a delay in receiving alcohol treatment and a poor military attitude concerning drinking disorders. Alcohol consumption is never a rationale or an acceptable excuse for inappropriate conduct, misconduct, or poor judgment. Regulations require members who have an ongoing history of alcohol abuse to be medically screened for an alcohol problem. If diagnosed as dependent on alcohol by competent medical authority, which does not include the commanding officer, appropriate treatment must be offered prior to separation. The purpose of this treatment is not to rehabilitate a service member for further service but rather to provide treatment before separation. The NDRB concluded the command acted appropriately, equitably, and properly in processing the Applicant for separation and in providing treatment. 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 her issue. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the Applicant produced any evidence, to support the contention that her command supported the underage use of alcohol and did not recognize and provide timely treatment for drinking disorders. The Applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity in this case. Further, w hile the Applicant may feel her youth and immaturity were an underlying cause of her misconduct, the record clearly reflects her willful misconduct and demonstrated she was unfit for further service. The evidence of record does not demonstrate the Applicant was not responsible for her conduct or that she should not be held accountable for her actions. The NDRB recognizes that many of our servicemembers are young at the time they enlist for service, however,


most still manage to serve honorably. While some members may be less mature than others, the NDRB does not view a member’s claim of immaturity to be a mitigating factor or a sufficient reason for misconduct.

 W hile other members of her unit may have been charged with the same or similar offenses, each case must stand on its own merits. The Commanding Officer is allowed to consider matters for extenuation and mitigation unique to each individual. Therefore no two cases, no matter how similar, are guaranteed to receive the same punishment. The NDRB reviews the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge individually, on a case-by-case basis. If such a review reveals an impropriety or inequity, relief is in order. Regulations permit relief on equitable grounds if the Applicant’s discharge is inconsistent with standards of discipline of the Naval Service. Based upon available records, nothing indicates that the Applicant’s discharge was in any way inconsistent with the standards of discipline in the United States Marine Corps. The NDRB determined PTSD did not mitigate her misconduct. A preponderance of the evidence reviewed supports the conclusion that the Applicant demonstrated a pattern of misconduct, the Applicant’s command did not support underage drinking and misconduct as evidenced by the Applicant’s nonjudical punishments and retention warning, alcohol treatment was provided, that separation from the Marine Corps was appropriate, and that an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge was warranted. Relief denied.
: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends her post-service conduct is worthy of an upgrade. 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 provided a personal statement, evidence of seasonal post-service employment, enrollment in a culinary arts training program, a letter from the co-Founder of Educated Canines Assisting with Disabilities stating her steady volunteer work since discharge, and character references from a church elder and her mother. She additionally provided a letter from a Department of Veterans Affairs social worker stating her current diagnosis and treatment for stable PTSD symptoms and early full remission for alcohol and cannabis abuse. 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. The Board determined 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.


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 | 2008_Marine | MD0801909

    Original file (MD0801909.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    While PTSD may be a contributing factor for the Applicant’s alcohol dependence, the record does not reflect the Applicant was not responsible for his actions or should not be accountable for his misconduct due to PTSD or TBI.Based on: 1) the Applicant’s willful nondisclosure of his actual marijuana use and history of depression and treatment prior to enlisting, 2) his NJP for underage drinking,3) his drunk driving incidents and continuing alcohol incidents after his second treatment for...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2014_Navy | ND1400325

    Original file (ND1400325.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 | 2009_Marine | MD0902583

    Original file (MD0902583.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 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0901735

    Original file (MD0901735.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant provided documentation the U.S Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) rated him 100 percent for PTSD, but stated he could not receive paid treatment. However, the NDRB determined partial relief was warranted based on clemency and by majority rule, the NDRB voted to upgrade the discharge characterization to General (Under Honorable Conditions), but voted unanimously not to change the narrative reason for separation.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to...

  • USMC | DRB | 2012_Marine | MD1200351

    Original file (MD1200351.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Additionally, the NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment or educational opportunities as regulations limit the NDRB’s review to a determination of the propriety and equity of the discharge. 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 Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500796

    Original file (ND0500796.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests his characterization of service received at the time of discharge changed to honorable. No indication of appeal in the record.010724: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with the least favorable characterization of service as general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct pattern of misconduct and by reason of misconduct alcohol rehabilitation failure.010724: Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult with...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700831

    Original file (ND0700831.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Awarded - Retention Warning: 19910109: For Article 86 and 134 (underage drinking, 2 specs) advised of assistance available.19910426: For Article 111 (DUI) and 134 (underage drinking).19910603: For Article 111 (DWI) directed to attend CAAC Level II, 3 AA meetings per week, and meet with command DAPA weekly.19910724:Completed CAAC Level II alcohol treatment Types of Documents SubmittedRelated to Military Service: DD 214: Service and/or Medical Record: Other Records: Related to Post-Service...

  • USMC | DRB | 2007_Marine | MD0700827

    Original file (MD0700827.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After a complete review of the entire record, including the evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board determined that the discharge was appropriate in light of the nature and seriousness of the Applicant’s misconduct, and that the evidence of post-service conduct was not sufficient to convince the Board that an upgrade was appropriate at this time.In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of Government affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to...

  • USMC | DRB | 2014_Marine | MD1400335

    Original file (MD1400335.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After a careful review of the Applicant’s service and medical records, a summary of the NCIS investigation of the September 2008 alleged sexual assault, and the documentation and statements provided by the Applicant’s father, the NDRB determined the Applicant was provided with extensive alcohol rehabilitation treatment, counseling services, and psychiatric treatment and was provided multiple opportunities to correct her behavior and receive assistance for her alcohol dependence, depression,...

  • USMC | DRB | 2014_Marine | MD1400629

    Original file (MD1400629.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. With this misconduct, the Applicant met the requirements to be administratively separated for Misconduct (Serious Offense) and Misconduct (Pattern of Misconduct). ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance...