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

ex-Pvt, USMC
Docket No. MD02-00464

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 020304, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable.  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 021105.  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.  A copy of documents have already been submitted previous and is on file, February 12, 2002, an original app was also sent to the Marine Corps January 25, 2001 by our US House representative N_ L_.  If a personal review is needed, I will be happy to appear at any time needed.  My records state I was not an honorable Marine these allegations are false and I have proof, it was never reviewed by a Jag officer.  My rights were never even thought to be important.  As a Marine I was very honored to be able to position myself as one who could possibly serve my country.  School was the downfall at San Angelo there were people there who abused others very badly and because they were a higher rank than I it was "covered up".  I honestly thought I could talk to someone and bring about a change but instead I was punished for talking and was also told - I was lying and on drugs.  I was not lying nor was I ever on drugs in the marine corp.
This matter needs to be looked into, I know I am not the only one this happened to.
Applicant marked the box "I PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED AN APPLICATION (Enter Date) AND AM COMPLETING THIS FORM IN ORDER TO SUBMIT ADDITIONAL ISSUES.”  The previous application was returned to the Applicant on 23 Apr 01 because records were not available from St. Louis (less than 9 months).

Documentation

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

Copy of DD Form 214
One page from Applicant's service record
Letter to House of Representatives dated February 12, 2001
Copy of preliminary inquiry dated April 21, 2000
Anonymous letter left under an instructor's office door on April 12, 2000
Testimony dated April 14, 2000 (4 pages)
Letter from Applicant

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   None
	Inactive: USMCR(J)		990902 - 991019	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  991020		Date of Discharge:  001205

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    01  01  16
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  59

Highest Rank:  Pvt

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Proficiency:  4.1 (1)			Conduct:  4.1 (1)

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  None

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  13

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:

990813:	Applicant briefed upon and certified understanding of Marine Corps policy concerning illegal use of drugs.

000512:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86:
Specification: Unauthorized absence 9 Apr 00 to 21 Apr 00 (12 days).
Violation of UCMJ, Article 92:
Specification: Failure to obey order or regulation on 1 Apr 00, to wit: wrongfully drinking alcoholic beverages while under age (BAC 0.110%).
Awarded forfeiture of $234.00 per month for 1 month, restriction for 14 days.  Not appealed.

000517:	Applicant found to be ETOH dependent and recommended outpatient treatment.  Applicant refused alcohol treatment.

000601:	Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct.  [Refusal of Level III alcohol treatment while under going training at this command.]

000612:	NAVDRUGLAB, Jacksonville, FL, reported Applicant’s urine sample, received 000605, tested positive for THC.

000706:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86:
Specification: Failure to go to appointed place of duty 0800, 24 Jun 00 until 1600, 25 Jun 00 absence (1 day).
Violation of UCMJ, Article 112a:
Specification: Wrongfully use THC on 12 Jun 00, as identified in NAVDRUGLAB Jacksonville, FL, message R 122004Z Jun 00.
Awarded forfeiture of $502.00 per month for 1 month, restriction for 30 days.  Not appealed.

000725:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86:
Specification: Unauthorized absence.
Violation of UCMJ, Article 134:
Specification: Breaking restriction, failure to be at his appointed place of duty on 0100, 17 Jul 00.
Awarded forfeiture of $234.00 per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duties for 14 days.  Not appealed.

000726:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.

000726:	Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.  The factual basis for this recommendation was marijuana usage, as identified through urinalysis testing by Navy Drug Screening Laboratory, Jacksonville, FL (NAVDRUGLAB JACKSONVILLE fl/r 122004Z JUN 00).  

000803:	Applicant advised of rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge Board.

000921:	An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence and by unanimous vote, found that the Applicant had committed misconduct due to drug abuse, that the misconduct warranted separation, and recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions.

001204:	SJA review determined the case sufficient in law and fact.

001204:	GCMCA [Commander, Training Command, Quantico, VA] 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 001205 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 Board found no evidence to support the Applicant’s allegations that he was denied his rights during his separation proceedings.  The Board found no evidence to support the Applicant’s allegations that he was hazed and the incidents were unfairly suppressed by his command.  A staff non-commissioned officer may be authorized to conduct preliminary inquiries.  The evidence presented by the Applicant does not provide a basis for relief.  However, there is credible evidence in the record that the Applicant used illegal drugs.  Drug abuse warranted processing for separation, normally under other than honorable conditions.  Relief denied.

The Applicant’s discharge characterization accurately reflects his service to his country.  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.  Relief not warranted.

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.  Representation at a personal appearance hearing is 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 31 Jan 97 until Present. 

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