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

 ex-Pvt, USMC
Docket No. MD02-00120

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 011017, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions.  The applicant requested a personal appearance hearing before the board in the Washington National Capital Region.  The applicant did not list any representative on the DD Form 293.  In the acknowledgement letter to the applicant, the applicant was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 020620.  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, authority: MARCORSEPMAN 6210.5.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

1.  It is my opinion that I wasn't accurately discharged based upon the fact that in 26 months of active service the charge in question was the only violation of any military code or law.

2.  I fully believe my patriotism loyalty to God corps and county and my sence of duty far outweigh my poor decision and disregard for myself.

3.  I find it truly impossible for a human being to remain objective while conducting a summary courts martial he/she acts as judge jury, prosecution and defence justice becomes disportionate.  The possibility of a fair trial w/equal representation is greatly inhibited.

Documentation

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

Personal letter
Letter to senator
Letter from senator
Letter from senator to general, USMC Commandant
Character reference and letter of recommendation from Reverend
Copy of negative drug screen report from sample taken September 1, 1999 (2 copies)
Copy of negative drug screen report from sample taken October 22, 1999 (2 copies)
Copy of negative drug screen report from sample taken October 25, 1999
Copy of DD Form 214
Fifty-one pages from applicant's service records

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   None
	Inactive: USMCR(J)		960613 - 960811	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  960812		Date of Discharge:  980916

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    02  01  05
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  19			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  69

Highest Rank:  LCpl

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Proficiency:  3.9 (6)			Conduct:  3.7 (6)

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  SSDR

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority:  MARCORSEPMAN 6210.5.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

960610:	Applicant briefed upon and certified understanding of Marine Corps policy concerning illegal use of drugs.

980428:	Applicant informed eligible but not recommended for promotion to Cpl for the May 1998 promotion period.

980731:	Summary Court-Martial.
	Charge I:  violation of the UCMJ, Article 112A:
	Specification: Wrongfully used lysergic acid diethylamide on 2Jun88.
	Finding: to Charge I and the specification thereunder, guilty.
	Sentence: Forfeiture of $617.00 pay per month for 1 month, confinement for 30 days, reduced to Pvt.
	CA action 980807: Sentence approved and ordered executed.

980731:	Applicant to confinement.

980817:	Applicant advised he does not rate VA treatment in conjunction with discharge.

980824:	Applicant released from confinement.

980817:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.

980817:	Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult 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.  Only page 2 of SOA found in service records.

980825:	Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.  The factual basis for this recommendation was wrongful use of lysergic acid diethylamide. 

980901:	SJA review determined the case sufficient in law and fact.

980903:	GCMCA [Commanding General, Marine Corps Base Hawaii] 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 980916 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).

Issue 1. The applicant states his discharge was based on one incident in 26 months of service with no other infractions.  The applicant used illegal drugs. Drug abuse warranted processing for separation, normally under other than honorable conditions.  The discharge was proper and equitable.  Relief denied.

Issue 2. A characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions is warranted when the member's conduct constitutes a significant departure of that expected of a Marine.  The applicant’s service was marred by award of a summary court-martial for drug abuse and below average performance evaluation markings.  The applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflects his willful disobedience of the orders and directives which regulate good order and discipline in naval service, and falls short of that required for an honorable characterization of service.  An upgrade would be inappropriate.  Relief denied.

Issue 3. With respect to a discharge adjudged by a court-martial case, the action of the NDRB is restricted to upgrades based on clemency [C].  The applicant’s case was considered under the pertinent standards of equity to determine if any factors in this particular case merited clemency. The NDRB found the applicant’s service record devoid of any mitigating or extenuating factors sufficient to offset the seriousness of the offenses for which the discharge was awarded.   Relief denied.

Concerning a change in reenlistment code, the NDRB has no authority to change reenlistment codes or make recommendations to permit reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Naval Service or any other branch of the Armed Forces. Neither a less than fully honorable discharge nor an unfavorable “RE” code is, in itself, a bar to reenlistment. A request for waiver is normally done only during the processing of a formal application for enlistment through a recruiter.  Relief is therefore denied.

The applicant’s discharge characterization accurately reflects his service to his country.  The discharge was proper and equitable.  Normally, to permit relief, an error or injustice must have existed during the period of enlistment in question.  No such error or injustice occurred during the applicant’s enlistment.  Additionally, there is no law, or regulation, which 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.  However, the NDRB is authorized to consider outstanding post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge, 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.  Verifiable proof of any post-service accomplishments must be provided in order for the applicant to claim post-service conduct and behavior as a reason to upgrade a less than Honorable discharge.  Evidence of continuing educational pursuits, an employment record, documentation of community service, certification of non-involvement with civil authorities and proof of his not using drugs, are examples of verifiable documents that should have been provided to receive consideration for relief, based on post-service conduct.  The applicant did not provide sufficient documentation to warrant an upgrade to his discharge.  He is reminded that he remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of his discharge.  The applicant can provide additional documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments at that time.  Legal representation at a personal appearance hearing is highly recommended but not required.  Relief denied.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Paragraph 6210, MISCONDUCT, of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16E), effective 31 Jan 97 until Present. 

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 112a, wrongful 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 “afls10.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