Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2013_Marine | MD1301747
Original file (MD1301747.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-, USMC
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20130823
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)       20101001 - 20101011     Active:  

Pre-Service Drug Waiver:

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20101012     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Months
Date of Discharge: 20120809      H ighest Rank:
Length of Service : Y ea r ( s ) M on th ( s ) 29 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 64
MOS: 6672
Proficiency/Conduct M arks (# of occasions): ( ) / ( )    Fitness R eports:

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      Rifle

Periods of UA / CONF :

NJP:

- 20120314 :      Article (Wrongful use, possession, etc. of controlled substances , did on or about 20120224, during a random urinalysis, test positive for wrongful use of a S chedule I controlled substance to wit: Marijuana, as verified by lab results , 362 ng/mL )
         Awarded : Susp ended:

SCM:     SPCM:    CC:

Retention Warning Counseling :

- 20120314 :       For Article (Wrongful use, possession, etc. of controlled substances ; also advised of being processed for administrative separation)

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 .       The Applicant contends recommendations from his chain of command and outstanding record of service were not taken into consideration.
2 . The Applicant contends he was targeted and made an example of due to his father’s status as a Marine Corps Sergeant Major going through the Wounded Warrior Regiment to deal with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and being shunned by his fellow E-9s as an embarrassment to the rank of Sergeant Major.
3 .       The Applicant contends his discharge was unjust and disproportionate to the charge.
4 . The Applicant contends mistreatment by his father , who was struggling with PTSD, mitigates his misconduct .

Decision

Date: 20 1 4 0312            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 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 ( Wrongful use, possession, etc. of controlled substances , marijuana). The Applicant a pre-service drug waiver prior to entering the Marine Corps . acknowledged complete understanding of the Marine Corps Policy Concerning Illegal Use of Drugs on 30 September 20 10 . 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 . The administrative board voted 3-0 to recommend an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge, which was approved by the Separation Authority.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends recommendations from his chain of command and outstanding record of service were not taken into consideration. Following the Applicant’s administrative separation board, his defense counsel submitted a statement to the Separation Authority requesting that his discharge be suspended. In the letter, the defense counsel stressed the significant number of letters of support from the Applicant’s chain of command and his record of service. After reviewing the discharge proceedings, the Applicant’s defense counsel’s letter, the chain-of-command recommendations, and the Applicant’s service record, the Separation Authority ordered the Applicant to be discharged Under Other Than Honorable Conditions for Misconduct (Drug Abuse). 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. A preponderance of the evidence reviewed supports the conclusion that the Applicant committed misconduct (drug abuse), 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 he was targeted and made an example of due to his father’s status as a Marine Corps Sergeant Major going through the Wounded Warrior Regiment to deal with PTSD and being shunned by his fellow E-9s as an embarrassment to the rank of Sergeant Major. The government assumes 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. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the Applicant produced any evidence, to support the contention the command treated him unfairly , particularly as a result of his

father’s status . T he Applicant tested positive for marijuana during a routine urinalysis and was found guilty of violating UCMJ Article 112a , which requires mandatory processing for administrative separation. He presented his case before an administrative separation board and was properly and equitably discharged Under Other Than Honorable Conditions. Relief denied.
: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends his discharge was unjust and disproportionate to the charge. 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 Applicant was represented by counsel, properly notified, and afforded an Administrative Separation Board. A preponderance of the evidence reviewed supports the conclusion that the Applicant committed drug abuse, that separation from the Marine Corps w as appropriate, and that an U nder O ther T han H onorable Conditions discharge was warranted. Relief d enied .

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends mistreatment by his father, who was struggling with PTSD, mitigates his misconduct. T he NDRB recognizes that serving in the military is challenging. Most servicemembers, however, serve honorably and therefore earn their Honorable or General discharges. In fairness to those servicemembers, commanders and separation authorities are tasked to ensure that undeserving Marines receive no higher characterization than is due. There is no evidence in the record, nor did the Applicant provide any documentation, to indicate he attempted to use the numerous services available for servicemembers who undergo personal problems during their enlistment s , such as the Navy Chaplain, Medical or Mental Health professionals, Navy and Marine Corps Relief Society, Family Advocacy Programs, or even the Red Cross. The NDRB determined mistreatment by his father, who was struggling with PTSD, did not mitigate his 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 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), 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 | 2013_Marine | MD1300640

    Original file (MD1300640.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    of controlled substances, to wit: THC 65 ng/mL) Sentence: SPCM: CC: Retention Warning Counseling: 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0901025

    Original file (MD0901025.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT Applicant’s Issues 1. Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, service record entries, discharge process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall remain Under Other Than Honorable Conditions, and the narrative reason for separation shall remain Commission of a...

  • USMC | DRB | 2015_Marine | MD1500515

    Original file (MD1500515.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. ADDENDUM: Information for the Applicant Complaint Procedures : If you believe the decision in your case is...

  • USMC | DRB | 2015_Marine | MD1500072

    Original file (MD1500072.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The NDRB requested the Applicant’s medical treatment records and did review the contents submitted to the NDRB from the VA. 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...

  • 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 | 2008_Marine | MD0801421

    Original file (MD0801421.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    - Bipolar Disorder information - Picture of former service member - Picture of former service member and family DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT Applicant’s Issues 1.Request upgrade based on mitigating circumstances. While the Board does not dispute the family’s effort in attempting to make the Marine Corps aware of their son’s past, the Board has to accept the fact the official enlistment application does not contain any of the...

  • USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1000002

    Original file (MD1000002.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The NDRB received a copy of the Applicant’s medical record and found on his Report of Medical History (DD Form 2807-1) dated 29 October 2008, that he marked “Yes” to blocks 17.e. The NDRB determined he was not mistreated or hazed and although the Applicant thinks he performed to the best of his ability, he met the requirements to be administratively separated by reason of misconduct – pattern of misconduct.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the...

  • USMC | DRB | 2012_Marine | MD1201038

    Original file (MD1201038.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/ToCongress member: DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD...

  • USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1100775

    Original file (MD1100775.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/ToCongress member: DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD...

  • USMC | DRB | 2014_Marine | MD1401265

    Original file (MD1401265.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 PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application...