Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2013_Marine | MD1301507
Original file (MD1301507.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-, USMC
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20130724
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)       2 0050611 - 20051127     Active:  

Pre-Service Drug Waiver:

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20051128     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Months
Date of Discharge: 20090421      H ighest Rank:
Length of Service : Y ea rs M on ths 25 D a ys
Education Level:        AFQT: 31
MOS: 3051
Proficiency/Conduct M arks (# of occasions): ( ) / ( )    Fitness R eports:

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

NJP:

- 20070108 :      Article (Absence without leave, did on or about 12 December 2006 , did absent herself from her appointed place of duty )
         Awarded: Suspended:

- 200 80626 :      Article (Wrongful use, possession, etc. of controlled substances , m arijuana, 33 ng/ml , as evidenced by NAVDRUGLAB msg dated 13 June 2008 )
          Awarded: Suspended: (FOP vacated on 20080730)

- 20080711 :      Article (Failure to obey order or regulation ; did on or about 21 June 2009, having knowledge of a lawful writt en order, fail to obey th e same by wearing a tongue ring )
         Article 91 ( Insubordinate conduct toward warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer ; on or about 21 June 2008, was disrespectful in language toward a Noncommissioned Officer, who was in the execution of his duties, by saying to him “ I t’s the weekend , Cpl, I do what I want , ” or words to that effect, when ordered to remove a tongue ring)
         Awarded: Suspended:

- 200 90209 :      Article ( Insubordinate conduct toward warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer; on or about 3 0 January 2009, was disrespectful in language and dep o rtment toward GySgt M_______ , a Provost Marshal Officer )
         Awarded: Suspended:

- 200 90212 :      Article (Wrongful use, possession, etc. , of controlled substances , m arijuana, 194 ng/ml, as evidenced by NAVDRUG L AB msg dated 8 January 2009)
         Awarded : Susp ended: (FOP vacated on 20080730)

SCM:

- 20081222 :       Art icle (Wrongful use, possession, etc. of controlled substances , m arijuana, 88 ng/ml, as evidenced by NAVDRUGLAB msg dated 26 August 2008 )
          Awarded: Suspended: (FOP vacated on 20080730)
         Sentence : (CONF PER DD 214: 20081222 - 20090114, 24 days)

SPCM:    CC:

Retention Warning Counseling :

- 200 70108 :      For violation of Article 86 ( Absence without leave, failed to go to her appointed place of duty)
- 200 80731 :      For the following deficiency; assignment marks 3.9 or below

- 20090209 :       For violation of Article 91 ( Insubordinate conduct toward warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer )

- 20090212 :      For violation of Article 112a (Wrongful use, possession, etc. of controlled substances, specifically , the usage of marijuana)

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

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

          “ ”
        
The NDRB will recommend to the Commandant of the Marine Corps , MMSB-13, 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 seeks an upgrade to qualify for veterans benefits.
2 .       The Applicant contends she served in Iraq and while on deployment she received bad news, reacted negatively, and made a bad choice after her command refused to help her through her crisis. She contends she is a good person who made a bad choice.
Decision

 Date: 20 1 4 0205            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. 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 ( Absence without leave ), Article ( Insubordinate conduct toward warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer , 2 specifications) , Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation ) , and Article ( Wrongful use, possession, etc., of controlled substances , 2 specifications) , and S ummary C ourt- M artial for of the UCMJ: Article ( Wrongful use, possession, etc., of controlled substances ). The Applicant a cknowledged complete understanding of the Marine Corps Policy Concerning Illegal Use of Drugs on 05 June 20 07 . Based on the Article 112a violation , processing for administ rative separation is mandatory. 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 .

: (Nondecisional) The Applicant seeks an upgrade to qualify for veterans 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.
: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends she served in Iraq and while on deployment she received bad news, reacted negatively, and made a bad choice after her command refused to help her through her crisis. She contends she is a good person who made a bad choice. During the Applicant’s 3 years and 4 months of service, she received four retention warnings and was found guilty of multiple serious UCMJ violations at five NJPs and a Summary Court-Martial. While the Applicant may feel her personal problems and lack of command assistance were contributing factor s to a bad choice, the record clearly reflects her willful disobedience of the orders and directives that regulate good order and discipline in the Naval Service, demonstrating s he was unsuitable for further service. With her frequent and severe misconduct, she met the requirements for administrative separation for Misconduct (Serious Offense), Misconduct (Pattern of Misconduct), and Misconduct (Drug Abuse). Despite frequent misconduct, however, her command allowed her to continue to serve and gave her multiple opportunities to correct her poor behavior. However, the Applicant continued to commit misconduct until her command determined she was no longer fit to serve. After a thorough review of the records, the NDRB determined her discharge was warranted, proper, and very 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

  • NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1100604

    Original file (ND1100604.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant’s record of service during her enlistment period reflects one NAVPERS 1070/613 retention-counseling warning being issued. Furthermore, the Applicant’s service record documents four nonjudicial punishments (NJPs) for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), specifically: Article 86 (Absent without leave, 4 specifications of unauthorized absence); Article 87 (Missing movement); Article 89 (Disrespect toward a superior commissioned officer); Article 91...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1300125

    Original file (ND1300125.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    of a controlled substance) on 5 October 2005, which is the day before she provided a urine sample for a random drug test. ” 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 | 2011_Marine | MD1100750

    Original file (MD1100750.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 | 2013_Marine | MD1300585

    Original file (MD1300585.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ” 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. 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. Additionally, the NDRB has no authority to upgrade a...

  • USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1101331

    Original file (MD1101331.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. Automatic Upgrades - There is no law or regulation that provides for an unfavorable discharge to be upgraded based solely on the passage of time...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1101974

    Original file (ND1101974.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant submitted two decisional issues for the NDRB’s consideration. ” 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 | MD1001432

    Original file (MD1001432.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. The letter instructed the Applicant’s command to effect separation of the Applicant within five working days.The Applicant was separated from the Marine Corps on 27 February 2009.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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2013_Marine | MD1300663

    Original file (MD1300663.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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.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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1200593

    Original file (ND1200593.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 testimony, 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 is not eligible for additional hearings before the NDRB. ”...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1200561

    Original file (ND1200561.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...