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

 ex-LCpl, USMC
Docket No. MD03-00934

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20030502.  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.  Subsequent to submitting the application, the Applicant obtained representation from the Veterans of Foreign Wars.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20040312.  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-Drug abuse (administrative discharge board required but waived), authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6210.5.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

1.  “My discharge was inequitable because it was base on one isolated incident in 17 months and 25 days of service with no other adverse action. Up until my bad judgement for the mistake I made, I had performed above and beyond the call of duty.  I had just been selected to the Silent Drill Team and I was considered to be an outstanding Marine.  Since my discharge I have earned an Engineering Degree and started a family.  I have been a model citizen and still carry myself like a Marine.  I think my country needs my skills as an engineer with the war and the terrorist attacks, and that’s the main reason I would like my discharge changed to Honorable.”

Additional issues submitted by Applicant’s counsel/representative (VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS):

2.  “IAW SECNAV Instructions 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (MDR 1984), enclosure (1), chapter 9, paragraph 9.3, Equity of discharge, we ask for all submitted evidence and statements of the applicant be carefully considered in addition to the DD 293 application on file.  The veteran has completed an Associates of Science Degree.”

Documentation

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

Copy of DD Form 214
        Certificate of Participation dated September 4, 1998
        ITT Technical Institute associate of applied science degree certificate

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:    None
	Inactive: USMCR(J)		900727 – 910605	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  910606		Date of Discharge:  931001

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    02  03  25
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  4 

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  55

Highest Rank:  LCpl

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Proficiency:  4.4 (5)			Conduct:  4.5 (5)

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NDSM, MM

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  5

Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance):

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS /Misconduct-Drug abuse (administrative discharge board required but waived), authority:  MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6210.5.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

900726:	Applicant briefed upon and certified understanding of Marine Corps policy concerning illegal use of drugs.

930212:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: UA, 0525, 930205 – 1130, 930210 (apprehended).
Awarded forfeiture of $221.00 (suspended for 3 months), restriction and extra duties for 14 days.  Not appealed.

930506:	SACC evaluation determined Applicant was a drug and alcohol abuser.

930506:	Medical evaluation for drug abuse found the Applicant to be a drug abuser, but did not meet criteria for alcohol abuse. Applicant reported that he used cocaine every other day for one year after joining USMC.  

930611:	Applicant completed Level I drug and alcohol rehabilitation treatment.

930816:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.

930816:	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.

930816:	Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.  The factual basis for this recommendation was the Applicant’s admitted use of cocaine.

930910:	SJA review determined the case sufficient in law and fact.

930914:	GCMCA [CG, MCCDC] 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 19931001 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).

Issues 1 and 2.  The Applicant claims his discharge was based on one isolated incident of drug abuse.  However, the Applicant reported to a medical doctor that he was using cocaine every other day for one year while on active duty.  There is credible evidence in the record that the Applicant used illegal drugs.  Drug abuse warranted processing for separation.  Separation under these conditions generally results in characterization of service under other than honorable conditions.  The discharge was proper and equitable.  Relief denied.

The NDRB has no authority to change reenlistment codes or make recommendations to permit reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Naval Service or any other branch of the Armed Forces.  Neither a less than fully honorable discharge nor an unfavorable “RE” code is, in itself, a bar to reenlistment.  A request for waiver is normally done only during the processing of a formal application for enlistment through a recruiter.  

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 P1900.16D), effective 27 Jun 89 until 17 Aug 95. 

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