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

 ex-PFC, USMC
Docket No. MD02-01031

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 020710, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions.  The Applicant requested a personal appearance hearing discharge review 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, he 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 030410.  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 was discharged in Sept, 1995 for a failed drug test (THC).  This was a result of an isolated incident, in 18 mos of service with no other disciplinary action or problems.  I believe the discharge I received was inequitable.  It resulted from the worst mistake I have ever made.  I was a good Marine & loved to be one.  I have tried to RE-ENLIST in the USMCR and the Virginia National Guard, however makes this impossible.  I have learned a lot since then in that even if you make a bad judgment call & engage in behavior that is not thought out, it could have disastrous consequences.  I regret that event more than any other in my life.  I ask that my discharge be upgraded so that I may regain some honor & be able to serve my country, if not in the Armed forces, as a Police officer.  I accept full responsibility for the action that resulted in my dismissal.  I would have liked to continue serving in the USMC w/disciplinary action without dismissal, but this was not possible.  I have been a Security officer for 5yrs and earned several commendations.  I have tried to move on but my discharge prevents me from some opportunities.  I thank you for your time.

Documentation

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

Copy of DD Form 214
Reference Letter from J_ A. W_, dated July 31, 2002
Employment Reference Letter from R_ S_, Operations Director, Fair Oaks Mall, dated July 26, 2002
Employment Reference Letter from R_ F_, Assistant Director, Fair Oaks Mall Security, dated July 26, 2002 
Employment Reference Letter from Lt L_ P_, Fair Oaks Mall Security, dated July 31, 2002

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   None
	Inactive: USMCR(J)		931221 - 940327	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  940328		Date o f Discharge:  950920

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    01  05  23
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  19			Years Contracted:  4 

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  67

Highest Rank:  LCpl

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Proficiency:  4.4 (5)			Conduct:  4.1 (5)

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NDSM, Sharpshooter Rifle Badge

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:

931214:	Applicant briefed upon and certified understanding of Marine Corps policy concerning illegal use of drugs.

950601:	NAVDRUGLAB [SAN DIEGO, CA], reported Applicant’s urine sample, received 950530, tested positive for [THC].

950615:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 112a: At CamPen, or in the civilian community between 950515 and 950522 wrongfully used THC, a scheduled I controlled substance.
Awarded forfeiture of $478.00 pay per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duties for 45 days (suspended for 6 months), reduction to E-2.  Not appealed.

950710:	Medical officer's evaluation indicates marijuana and alcohol abuse, dependency not found in record.  Applicant declined VA treatment. 

950717:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.

950717:	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.

950717:	Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.  The factual basis for this recommendation was Administrative Message R012013Z Jun 95, which identified Batch # K-005 and Social Security #552-91-6123, as positive for THC, a schedule I controlled substance. 

950817:	SJA review determined the case sufficient in law and fact.

950822:	GCMCA [Commander, 1st Marine Division] 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 950920 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 states his discharge was based on one isolated incident in eighteen months of service with no other infractions.  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.  The discharge was proper and equitable.  Relief denied.

The Applicant’s discharge characterization accurately reflects his service to his country.  Normally, to permit relief, an error or inequity must have existed during the period of enlistment in question.  No such error or inequity is evident 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, to enhance career opportunities, or for 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 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