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

 ex-PFC, USMC
Docket No. MD02-00179

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 011211, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable.  The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review.  The applicant listed the American Legion as the representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 020731.  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, as submitted

1.  I served 3 years and 11 months in the United States Marine Corps.  I loved that time in my life.  I was proud to be serving my country.  This is something I wish to do again for many more years.  I was young and very stupid and made a huge mistake by smoking marijuana.  After I was Other Than Honorably Discharged from the Marines I was very angry with myself. For the Past 5 years I have lived my life as a civilian to the best of my ability and have become a respected person in my community.  I have not and will not ever touch drugs again. I am proud of what I have accomplished as a civilian but am not happy.  I am a military man and want to be serving my country.  Respectfully yours,

2.  (Equity Issue) This former member further requests that the Board include provisions of SECNAVINST 5420.174C, enclosure (1), Chapter 9, as it pertains to post-service conduct, in assessing the merits of this application.

Documentation

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

Letter from Idaho State Senate dated October 3, 2001
Character reference dated September 26, 2001
Character reference dated September 26, 2001
Copy of letter of appreciation dated March 23, 1994
Copy of Good Conduct certificate dated December 21, 1995
Character reference dated February 27, 2002
Character reference dated March 1, 2002
Letter of recommendation from M_ J. C_
Letter of recommendation from R_ A. P_
Copy of DD Form 214

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   None
	Inactive: USMCR(J)		910823 - 920817	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  920818		Date of Discharge:  960814

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    03  11  27
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  19			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  42

Highest Rank:  LCpl

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Proficiency:  4.2 (12)		Conduct:  4.1 (12)

Military Decorations:  Rifle Marksman Badge, Pistol Sharpshooter Badge

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NDSM, AFEM, GCM, HSM, SSDR with 1 Star, JUC

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:

910822:	Applicant briefed upon and certified understanding of Marine Corps policy concerning illegal use of drugs.

921222:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 91:
Specification: Willfully disobeyed order from SSgt by refusing to train.
Awarded forfeiture of $183.00 per month for 1 months, restriction and extra duties for 14 days.  Restriction and extra duty suspended for 6 months.  Not appealed.

950818:	Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct.  [Financial irresponsibility.  Specifically, demonstrated poor financial management by uttering worthless checks.]  Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.

960619:	NAVDRUGLAB, Jacksonville, FL, reported applicant’s urine sample, received 960610, tested positive for THC.

960619:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 112A:
Specification: Unlawfully use a controlled substance between 30May96 and 4Jun96, to wit: marijuana.
Awarded forfeiture of $558.00 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duties for 45 days, reduction to PFC.  Not appealed.

960626:	Medical evaluation for drug abuse found the applicant to be a drug abuser, isolated incident, not drug dependent.  

960627:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.

960628:	Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights.

960628:	Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.  The factual basis for this recommendation was applicant’s Regimental NJP on 960627. 

960802:	SJA review determined the case sufficient in law and fact.

960806:	GCMCA [Commanding General, 2d Marine Division, U.S. Marine Corps Forces, Atlantic] 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 960814 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to drug abuse (A).  The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (B).  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 (C and D).

Issue 1.  The applicant used illegal drugs.  Drug abuse warranted processing for separation, normally under other than honorable conditions.  While he may feel that his youth was a factor that contributed to his actions, the record clearly reflects his willful disregard for the requirements of military discipline and demonstrated that he was unfit for further service.  The record is devoid of evidence that the applicant was not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions. Relief denied.

Issue 2.  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.  Relief denied.

The applicant 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.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Paragraph 6210, MISCONDUCT, of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16E), effective 18 Aug 95 to 30 Jan 97. 

B.  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.  

C.  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.

D.  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