DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 
 NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB)
                     DISCHARGE REVIEW
                   DECISIONAL DOCUMENT

 ex-PVT, USMC
Docket No. MD00-00944

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 000724, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions.  The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review.  The applicant did not list any representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 020901.  After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, NDRB discerned no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the applicant’s service.  The Board’s vote was unanimous that the character of the discharge shall not change.  The discharge shall remain: UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Misconduct-Drug abuse (administrative discharge board required but waived), authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6210.5.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

1.  I write this letter in hopes of getting my discharge upgraded from Other Than Honorable to General/Under Honorable Conditions.  I also write this letter with the hope that I have not spent my time in loving something so much as the time I did in the U.S. Marines.  I am aware that the situation of my discharge was uncalled for and there isn't a day passes wondering what caused me to act in such a dishonorable manner.  The only thing I can say in my defense was being one young dumb kid and trying to fit in with the rest I know that's not much on an excuse but that's the truth.  I have moved on with my life and have a beautiful wife and family but can never get over the scar that was left in the way I was discharged and treated by the Corps.  I was a good Marine and never gave anything but a hundred percent even got a Good Conduct Medal but was it all in vain.  I hope you understand how I feel and can someway assist me in my request.  But if the worst were to happen life will still go on and the Marine Corps will be nothing but a bad memory.

Documentation

In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:

None

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):

	Active:   USMC		None
	Inactive: USMCR(J)		860730 - 870701	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  870702		Date of Discharge:  910827

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:  03  11  25
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  4 

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  41

Highest Rank:  LCpl

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Proficiency:  4.36 (9)		Conduct:  4.2(9)

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  Rifle Marksman Badge, OSR, NDSM, GCM, SSDR 

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None 

Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance):

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS /Misconduct-Drug abuse (administrative discharge board required but waived), authority:  MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6210.5.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

860729:	Applicant briefed upon and certified understanding of Marine Corps policy concerning illegal use of drugs.

881114:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: UA from unit 0515, 881011 until on or about 0230, 881012.
Awarded forfeiture of $184.00 per month for 1 month, restriction and 
extra duties for 14 days.  Not appealed.

910114:	Summary Court-Martial.
	Charge I:  violation of the UCMJ, Article 92, (3 Specifications), Spec 1: Violate the 2dBn, 9thMar Liberty Policy by leaving Subic Bay Naval Base without checking out on 2330, 901117, Spec 2: Violate the Subic Bay Naval Base Order by not returning to base at the prescribed time on 0001, 901118, Spec 3: Violate the Subic Bay Naval Base Order by not returning to base at the prescribed time on 0001, 901120.  Charge II: violation of the UCMJ, Article 90.
	Finding:  to Charge I and specifications 1, 2 and 3 thereunder, guilty. To Charge II and specification thereunder, not guilty.
	Sentence:  Forfeiture of $642.00 pay per month for 1 month, restriction for 60 days.
	CA action 910121:  Sentence approved and ordered executed.

910121:	Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct.  [Concerning my frequent involvement] Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.

910211:	NAVDRUGLAB [OAKLAND, CA], reported applicant’s urine sample, received 910129, tested positive for Amp/Methamp/THC.

910320:	Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct.  Counseled concerning being recommended for Administrative Separation due to frequent involvement with military authorities and drug abuse.  Specific necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.

910320:	Summary Court-Martial.
	Charge I:  violation of the UCMJ, Article 112a: Wrongfully use an illegal controlled substance: Amp/Methamphetamine on or before 910102.  Charge II: violation of the UCMJ, Article 92: Violate MAGTF Order by having a female in the Camp Tamez area on 910117, Spec 2: Violate Bn Restriction by being at the basketball court outside G Co area on 910117.  Charge III: violation of the UCMJ, Article 86: Failed to be at his appointed place of duty G Co, 2dBn, 9thMar on 910122.
	Finding:  to Charge I and the specification thereunder, guilty. To Charge II and specification 1 and 2 thereunder, not guilty.  To Charge III and specification thereunder, guilty.
	Sentence:  Confinement for 30 days, forfeiture of $502.00 pay per month for 1 month, reduced to E-1.
	CA action 910327:  Sentence approved and ordered executed except for that portion of the punishment adjudging forfeiture of $502.00 pay per month which is suspended for 6 months at which time unless sooner vacated will be remitted without further action.

910425:	Applicant screened by a substance abuse counselor, diagnostic impression is alcohol and cannabis abuse.  The counselor recommended evaluation by medical officer, Level II treatment at DIV SAAC, monitored attendance at 3 AA/NA meeting weekly until treatment, weekly screening by unit SACO until Level II treatment.

910604:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.

910604:	Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights except the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation.

910604:	Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.  The factual basis for this recommendation is his wrongful use of an illegal substance: amphetamine/methamphetamine/THC. 

910626:	SJA review determined the case sufficient in law and fact.

910627:	GCMCA [Commander, MARFORPAC] directed the applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 910827 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to drug abuse (A and B).  The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (C).  After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (D and E).

The applicant introduced no decisional issues for consideration by the Board.

The Board disagrees with the applicant’s assertion, “I was always a good Marine...” as a review of his service record reveals substantial periods of unauthorized absence and orders disobedience, unlawful use of controlled substances, methamphetamine and THC, numerous adverse counseling entries for frequent involvement with military authorities, one NJP and two court-martials.  This willful disregard for orders, discipline, and military regulations is not representative of good and faithful Marine service.  Relief denied.

The following is provided for the applicant’s edification.  The NDRB is authorized to consider outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent that such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review.  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 the civilian life subsequent to leaving the service.  Normally, to permit relief, an error or injustice must be found to have existed during the period of enlistment in question.  No such error or injustice is evident in the applicant’s service record.  
At this time the applicant has not provided sufficient documentation of good character and conduct.  Therefore no relief will be granted.  The applicant is reminded that he is eligible for a personal appearance hearing provided the application is received within 15 years from the date of discharge.  Representation at personal appearance hearing is highly recommended.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Paragraph 6210, Misconduct, of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16D), effective 27 Jun 89 until 17 Aug 95. 

B.  The Manual for Courts-Martial authorizes the award of a punitive discharge if adjudged as part of the sentence upon conviction by a special or general court-martial for violation of the UCMJ, Article 86, unauthorized absence for more than 30 days, and Article 112a, unlawful use of a controlled substance.

C.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 2, AUTHORITY/POLICY FOR DEPARTMENTAL DISCHARGE REVIEW.  

D.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 9, paragraph 9.2, PROPRIETY OF THE DISCHARGE.

E.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 9, paragraph 9.3, EQUITY OF THE DISCHARGE.

PART IV - INFORMATION FOR THE APPLICANT

If you believe that 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 Directive 1332.28, you may submit a complaint in accordance with Enclosure (5) of that Directive.  You should read Enclosure (5) of the Directive 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 Directive 1332.28 and other Decisional Documents by going online at “afls14.jag.af.mil”.  

The names, and votes of the members of the Board are recorded on the original of this document and may be obtained from the service records by writing to:

		Naval Council of Personnel Boards
		Attn:  Naval Discharge Review Board
		720 Kennon Street SE Rm 309
		Washington Navy Yard DC  20374-5023