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

  ex-PVT, USMC
Docket No. MD03-00741

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20030319.  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 20040224.  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 entered the Marine Corps on July 12, 1990 and by the last week of the school of infantry there was a training accident and two bones were broken in my back during a hike.  I was then medically discharged from the military.  After rehabilitation I spent the next six years trying to get back into the Marine Corps.  After years of failing attempts an act of Congress by Congressman N_ D_ got me approved to reenter the Marine Corps.  The training lead to further pain in my back.  During overseas deployment the pain got unbearable.  Numerous doctors visits resulted that I was told that if I continued to go to medical that I might be medically discharged once again.  I loved the Marine Corps and wanted to make a career of it.  I then researched Human Growth Hormone (HGH) and found out that it could strengthen the bones in my back which could enable me to day in the Marines.  The choice to purchase HGH ended up to be the biggest mistake I have ever made.  Not only am I unable to continue my military career which I fought so hard to get back into, I also disgraced myself and the Corps.  At no point was my intentions anything but to remain in the military which I love.  If there is anything I can do to rectify the bad choice I made I will.  Thank you for taking the time to review my discharge.”

Documentation

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

Copies of DD Form 214 (2)
Character Reference Letter dated June 23, 2000
Letter of Recommendation dated June 30, 2000 (2 pages)
Character Statement (3 pages)
Letter from Applicant

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   USMC		900702 - 910520	HON
	Inactive: USMCR(J)		890726 - 900701	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  970109		Date of Discharge:  000630

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    03  05  22
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  24			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  63

Highest Rank:  Cpl

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Proficiency:  4.3 (9)			Conduct:  3.6 (9)

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  Rifle Expert Badge, GCM, SSDR, NUC, AFEM(Southern Watch)

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:

970109:	Reenlisted at RS Seattle for 4 years at the rank of E-2/PFC.

000316:	Summary Court-Martial.
	Charge I:  violation of the UCMJ, Article 92: Did on or about 991016 wrongfully possess drug paraphernalia, to wit: a syringe.  Charge II: violation of the UCMJ, Article 112a: Did on or about 991016 import four (4) vials of chrionic gonadotropin.
	Finding:  to Charge 1 and 2 and the specification thereunder, guilty.
	Sentence:  Forfeiture of $670.00, reduced to E-1.
	CA action 000316:  Sentence approved and ordered executed.

000320:	Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct.  [The Commanding Officer, Headquarters Company, 5th Marines, has begun proceedings to separate me from the U.S. Marine Corps for misconduct due to drug possession.]  Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.

000331:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.

000331:	Applicant advised of his rights and having chosen not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge Board.

000331:	Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.  The factual basis for this recommendation was your possession of steroids.

000524:	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.

000613:	SJA review determined the case sufficient in law and fact.

000616:	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 20000630 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.  There is credible evidence in the record that the Applicant possessed illegal drugs.  Drug possession warranted processing for separation.  Separation under these conditions generally results in characterization of service under other than honorable conditions.  The Applicant’s medical condition does not mitigate his misconduct.  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 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