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

 ex-PFC, USMC
Docket No. MD02-01275

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20020906.  The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable.  The Applicant requests 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 20040401.  After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the Applicant’s service was discovered by the NDRB.  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 stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

1.  “I failed a urinalysis on 950705, I admit that I was wrong in smoking marijuana and that it was proper that I was punished for it because I was know longer the leader that the Marine Corp made me.  “I had become a follower”, but I am not a drug abuser, I made an immature mistake.  For my mistake I did 45 days extra duty, 45 days restriction, reduction in rank, and discharged form the Marine Corps with an “OTHER THAN HONORABLE” discharge.  I ask that my discharge be upgraded because I’m trying to do something with my life and be a productive member of society.  During the past 7 years that I have been out I haven’t touched any type of illegal drug, or got in any type of trouble.  I have received my Commercial Driver License.  I attached a copy of my Pro/Cons marks while I was in service.  For my mistake, I believe that I have paid for it, and I would just like another chance.  Thank you.”

Documentation

In addition to the medical record, the Applicant submitted a copy of his Proficiency and conduct page from the service record.

On January 20, 2004, the Applicant was notified that the Board was unable to locate and obtain his service record and he was given the option of proceeding with the review or closing his case at this time.  The Applicant did not respond.  

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   None
	Inactive: USMCR(J)		Dates Unknown

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  920921		Date of Discharge:  951121

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    03  02  01
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  Unknown

Education Level:  Unknown		AFQT:  Unknown

Highest Rank:  Unknown

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):*

Proficiency:  4.5 (11)			Conduct:  4.5 (11)

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NDSM, Letter of Appreciation (2), NMCOSR

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

*Marks provided by Applicant

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:

951113:	GCMCA [CG 2d MAW] directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.  [Extracted from DD Form 214, Block 18.]

951121:	DD Form 214: Applicant discharged under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct, authority:  MARCORSEPMAN 6210.5.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19951121 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to drug abuse (A).  In the absence of the service record, the Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (B) and, after a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, found that the discharge was proper and equitable (C and D).

Issue 1.  Drug abuse warranted processing for separation.  Separation under these conditions generally results in characterization of service under other than honorable conditions.  The evidence of record and documentation provided by the Applicant does not demonstrate that the Applicant was not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions.  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, 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 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