Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2014_Marine | MD1400989
Original file (MD1400989.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-, USMC
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20140404
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)       19990421 - 19990920     Active:  

Pre-Service Drug Waiver:

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 19990921     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Months
Date of Discharge: 20030214      H ighest Rank:
Length of Service : Y ea r ( s ) M on th ( s ) 24 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 67
MOS: 4066
Proficiency/Conduct M arks (# of occasions): ( ) / ( )    Fitness R eports:

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      Rifle

Period of UA : 20021009 - 20030210 (123 days)

NJP:

- 20020805 :       Art icle (Absent without leave , 2 s pecifications )
         Specification 1: 0631 - 0730, 20020802
         Specification 2: 0631 - 0701 , 20020803
         Sentence : EPD          S uspended : NONE

SCM:

- 20020827 :       Art icle 112a (Wrongful use, possession , etc of a controlled substance, marijuana 33ng/m l )
         Sentence : ( 20020827 - 20020923 , 28 days )

SPCM:             CC:               Retention Warning Counseling :

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 seeks Department of Veterans Affairs ( VA ) benefits.
2.       The Applicant contends he unknowingly digested marijuana - laced brownies.
3.       The Applicant contends his parents’ divorce , his earlier misconduct, 9/11, and other stressors led to his unauthorized absence (UA) .
4.       The Applicant contends his in-service conduct warrants an upgrade.
5 .       The Applicant contends his post-service conduct warrants an upgrade.

Decision

Date: 20140814           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 Applicant’s record of service included for o f the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 86 (Absent without leave, 2 s pecifications) and for of the UCMJ: Article 112a (Wrongful use, possession, etc of a controlled substance , marijuana 33ng/ml) . The Applicant a pre-service drug waiver for using marijuana prior to entering the Marine Corps, acknowledged complete understanding of the Marine Corps Policy Concerning Illegal Use of Drugs on 14 April 1999 . Finally, the Applicant had a 123-day period of unauthorized absence. 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 right to consult with a qualified coun sel but waived his rights to submit a written statement and request an administrative board .

: (Nondecisional) The Applicant seeks VA 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 he unknowingly digested marijuana - laced brownies. If the Applicant felt he was mistakenly charged with a crime, it was his obligation to contest those charges at the time they were made. During a trial or administrative separation board, he would have had the opportunity to mount a defense against the charges. When given the opportunity to declare his innocence and present his case at a pending S pecial C ourt- M artial, the Applicant submitted a pre-trial agreement where he admitted his guilt to violating Article 112a and waived his right to an administrative separation board. The Applicant submitted no evidence to support his contention that he unknowingly ate marijuana-laced brownies. Relief denied.
: (Decisional) ( ) The Applicant contends his parents’ divorce, his earlier misconduct, 9/11, and other stressors led to his UA. While the Applicant may feel that personal stressors were a contributing factor to his misconduct, they do not mitigate his disobedience of the orders and directives that regulate good order and discipline in the Naval Service, demonstrating he was unsuitable for further service. Relief denied.

Issue 4: (Decisional) (Propriety/Equity) RELIEF NOT WARRANTED. The Applicant contends his in-service conduct warrants an upgrade. During the Applicant’s 3 years and 4 months of service, he was found guilty of two specifications of going UA and drug abuse, had below-average Proficiency and Conduct marks of 4.2/4.0, and had a UA period of 123 days. Further, he was never awarded a Good Conduct Medal. To be eligible for a Good Conduct Medal, one must serve for three years without misconduct. Taking into consideration his extended UA period, the Applicant served less than three years and

had misconduct during that period. The confusion likely arose from Block 18 on his DD Form 214, whi ch reset the three-year counter after his Summary Court-Martial on 27 August 2002. Since t he 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 the Applicant’s 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 of service was warranted. Relief denied.
5 : (Decisional) ( ) The Applicant contends his post-service conduct warrants an upgrade. The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the re-characterization of a discharge. However, there is no law, or regulation, that provides that an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Normally, to permit relief, a procedural impropriety or inequity must have been found to exist during the period of enlistment in question. Besides the Applicant’s statement on the DD Form 293, he failed to provide any documentary evidence on his behalf for post-service consideration. The Applicant could have provided documentation as detailed in the Post-Service Conduct paragraph in the Addendum with the recognition that 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. Without post-service documentary evidence, the Board determined the awarded characterization of service shall remain 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 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 | 2010_Marine | MD1001344

    Original file (MD1001344.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-01329_2nd_Board

    Original file (BC-2005-01329_2nd_Board.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant’s squadron commander made the recommendation to the Air Wing commander. On 13 October 2000, her commander notified her of his intent to impose NJP and to discharge her from the NYANG for violating NY State law by wrongfully using THC, a controlled substance. Counsel’s complete response is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The AFBCMR Medical Consultant contends the cutoff level for determining a...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-01329

    Original file (BC-2005-01329.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant’s squadron commander made the recommendation to the Air Wing commander. On 13 October 2000, her commander notified her of his intent to impose NJP and to discharge her from the NYANG for violating NY State law by wrongfully using THC, a controlled substance. Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The AFBCMR Medical Consultant contends the cutoff level for determining a...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080012121

    Original file (20080012121.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    A review of the applicant's discharge documents shows that the unit commander, in his notification to the applicant of discharge proceedings, stated "I am initiating action to separate you for a commission of a serious offense. The evidence of record shows that he was involuntarily processed for discharge by reason of commission of a serious offense – abuse of illegal drugs. The applicant's wrongful use of marijuana formed the basis for his discharge action.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR1360 13

    Original file (NR1360 13.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Enclosure (2) h. On 23 August 2004 Petitioner was so discharged. wa The majority of the Board also relies upon the advisory opinion from the Marine Corps Judge Advocate Division which recommended an upgrade to Petitioner's reenlistment code; removal of all adverse material in Petitioner's Official Military Personnel File pertaining to administrative separation ror misconduct due to drug abuse; and that all associated relief be granted. The minority notes that Petitioner was found guilty...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2014_Navy | ND1400403

    Original file (ND1400403.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Representation: 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 governmental affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include...

  • USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1000100

    Original file (MD1000100.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant contends, “As stipulated in Sections 6306, 6308, 6308.1(a), 6308.1(b), 6308.1(c)(2), and 6316.1, the Separation Authority staff did not conduct a thorough legal review of the [administrative board] proceedings, i.e., legal review did not comment on the merits of numerous specific legal issues raised by Defense Counsel in the 20 Jul 08 Appeal/Letter of Deficiency, did not set forth facts and reasoning leading to a determination, did not recommend corrective action, and did not...

  • USMC | DRB | 2014_Marine | MD1401468

    Original file (MD1401468.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 remainUNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS and the narrative reason for separation shall remainMISCONDUCTThe Applicant remains eligible for a...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1001985

    Original file (ND1001985.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. Additionally, the NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities. The Applicant is advised that completion of these items alone does not guarantee the upgrade of an unfavorable discharge, as each...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1101676

    Original file (ND1101676.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: Pertinent Regulation/Law A. The Applicant submitted two...