Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2013_Marine | MD1301138
Original file (MD1301138.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-, USMC
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20130506
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)       20090602 - 20100627     Active:  

Pre-Service Drug Waiver:

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20100628     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Months
Date of Discharge: 20120514      H ighest Rank:
Length of Service : Y ea r ( s ) M on th ( s ) 17 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 70
MOS: 0311
Proficiency/Conduct M arks (# of occasions): ( ) / ( )    Fitness R eports:

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

Periods of UA / CONF :

NJP:

- 20110804 :       Article (Failure to obey order or regulation , to wit: by shooting his weapon at a dog, endangering himself and the Marines around him )
         Article 108 (Military property of the United States - Loss, damage, destruction, or wrongful disposition , to wit: by trading a serialized camera with local nationals for energy drinks )
         Awarded: Suspended:

- 20120109 :      Article (Wrongful use, possession, etc. of controlled substances , to wit: wrongfully use marijuana in Nawa, Afghanistan )
         Awarded : Susp ended:

SCM:     SPCM:    CC:

Retention Warning Counseling :

- 20110804 :       For your recen t NJP for violation of Article s 92 and 108

- 20120109 :       For your recent NJP for violation of Article 112a






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’s family contends his in-service record warrant s an upgrade.
2.       The Applicant’s family contends Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder ( PTSD ) led to his misconduct.

Decision

Date: 20 1 3 1016            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 family’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. The Applicant’s service record documents completion of a deployment to Afghanistan from May to November 2011 conducting combat operations in support of Operation ENDURING 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. The Applicant’s family is requesting, posthumously, to upgrade their son’s characterization of service. Although requests by families a re infrequent, they are not unique. The NDRB reviews these cases in an objective manner as if the Applicant was still living; however, the board also takes into consideration that certain documentary or testimonial evidence may not be available or reasonable to obtain. The Applicant’s record of service included 6105 counseling warnings and for o f the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation, to wit: by shooting his weapon at a dog, endangering hims elf and the Marines around him), Article 108 (Military property of the United States - Loss, damage, destruction, or wrongful disposition, to wit: by trading a serialized camera with local nationals for energy drinks) , and Article 112a (Wrongful use, possession, etc. of controlled substances, to wit: wrongfully use marijuana in Nawa, Afghanistan) . The Applicant a pre-service drug waiver for using illicit drugs prior to entering the Marine Corps . acknowledged complete understanding of the Marine Corps Policy Concerning Illegal Use of Drugs on 20 May 2009 . Based on the Article 112a violation , processing for administ rative separation is mandatory. When notified of a dministrative separation processing for Misconduct (Drug Abuse) and Misconduct (Pattern of Misconduct) using the procedure, the Applicant rights to consult with a qualified coun sel, submit a written statement , and request an administrative board .

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant’s family contends his in-service record , to include a combat deployment , Bronze Star Medal , and Good Conduct Medal , warrant s an upgrade. The Applicant was never awarded a Good Conduct Medal or a Bronze Star Medal. The confusion for the Good Conduct Medal likely arose from Block 18 on the Applicant’s DD Form 214, which documents the restarting of the time counter for the Good Conduct Medal, which is awarded after 3 years of misconduct-free service. The date of 20120109 in Block 18 corresponds to the Applicant’s last incidence of misconduct. During the Applicant’s 1 year and 10 months of service, he received two retention warnings and was found guilty of multiple UCMJ violations at two NJPs. The “Bronze Service Star” reference in Block 13 of his DD Form 214 refers to a second award of the Afghanistan Campaign Medal and is not the Bronze Star Medal. The Applicant served in Afghanistan during two separate campaigns. The bronze service star on the Afghanistan Campaign Medal denotes two awards of that medal, which is given to service members who served in the theater. The Applicant was administratively separated and not separated upon expiration of enlistment or fulfillment of service obligation. The characterization of service is determined by the quality of the member’s total performance of duty and conduct during the current enlistment, including the reason for separation. Other considerations shall be given to the member’s length of service, grade, aptitude, and physical and mental condition. Based on his record of service, the NDRB determined the Applicant engaged in conduct involving one or more acts or omissions that constituted a significant departure from the conduct expected of members of the Naval Service, and the awarded characterization was warranted. Relief denied.
: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant’s family contends PTSD led to his misconduct and submitted four letters of character reference . 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. The NDRB requested the Applicant’s medical treatment records, but the Department of Veterans Affairs was unable to locate them. Furthermore, the NDRB did not find any reference to a medical diagnosis of PTSD in the Applicant’s service record to support his claim, and the Applicant did not provide any documentary evidence of a medical diagnosis by competent medical authorities to support his claim. However, the record clearly shows that on 07 March 2012, the Applicant was screened for PTSD and Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) by medical authorities , and it was determined that he had not been diagnosed with or reported symptoms consistent with PTSD or TBI. Though the Applicant’s family may feel that PTSD was the underlying cause of his misconduct, his 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. After an exhaustive review, the NDRB determined PTSD did not mitig ate the Applicant’s misconduct. 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 ’s family 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 | 2014_Marine | MD1400636

    Original file (MD1400636.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Further, the NDRB voted 4-1 not to change the Narrative Reason for Separation since Misconduct most accurately describes why he was discharged from the Marine Corps.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 the discharge was proper but not equitable. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance...

  • USMC | DRB | 2015_Marine | MD1500690

    Original file (MD1500690.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2013_Marine | MD1301216

    Original file (MD1301216.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Relief granted.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 review has been conducted, former members...

  • USMC | DRB | 2015_Marine | MD1501186

    Original file (MD1501186.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2015_Marine | MD1500784

    Original file (MD1500784.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. Based on the offense(s) committed by the Applicant, command administratively processed for separation. ” 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.

  • USMC | DRB | 2013_Marine | MD1300194

    Original file (MD1300194.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    However, the record clearly shows the Applicant’s PTSD was taken into proper consideration throughout the separation process, and it was determined that the Applicant’s PTSD did not completely mitigate the Applicant’s severe and repetitive misconduct. The Applicant, as a combat veteran, is encouraged to contact his local VA affairs representative for more information and may request a review of service and determination of benefits from the VA. Alternately, he may call 1-877-222-8387 or...

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0901573

    Original file (MD0901573.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. The NDRB determined the characterization of service received was warranted.Relief denied.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, medical and record entries, discharge process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall and the narrative...

  • USMC | DRB | 2015_Marine | MD1401776

    Original file (MD1401776.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    There is no indication in the evidence of record or in the documentation submitted by the Applicant that the Applicant was recommended for or processed for a medical board by proper authority. 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2015_Marine | MD1401776 (1)

    Original file (MD1401776 (1).rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    There is no indication in the evidence of record or in the documentation submitted by the Applicant that the Applicant was recommended for or processed for a medical board by proper authority. 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2013_Marine | MD1300792

    Original file (MD1300792.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    However, the record shows the Applicant was notified of administrative separation processing for Misconduct (Drug Abuse) and Misconduct (Pattern of Misconduct) and had an administrative board where they voted that a preponderance of the evidence showed the Applicant had committed misconduct and recommended separation Under Other Than Honorable Conditions. Relief denied.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entries...