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

  ex-LCpl, USMC
Docket No. MD03-00980

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20030513.  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 designate a representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20040408.  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 HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL)/Misconduct-Drug abuse (with administrative discharge board), authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6210.5.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

1.  “I am requesting upgrade on my DD214 form, Block #24 (Character of service) from General under Honorable conditions to Honorable, And block #27 (Reentry code) from RE-4b to RE-1.  These changes will allow me the opportunity to persue a carrer with the Marine Corps.”

Documentation

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

Copy of DD Form 214
Applicant’s Remarks page
Applicant’s address/telephone page
Copy of Applicant’s Social Security Identification Card with photo
Letter to the Applicant from Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps, Quantico, VA dtd Jan 17, 2003
Applicant’s letter to Board for Correction of Naval Records, dtd Feb 25, 2003
Police Check, Guam Police Department, dtd Feb 24, 2003 (2 pages)
Copy of Applicant’s Enlistment Contract into the Army National Guard, dtd Jul 16, 2001
Applicant’s Personnel Action page for Advancement to E-4, dtd Dec 1, 2001
Guam National Guard Counter Drug Program, Drug Test Certification, for 31 July 2002 random testing, dtd Aug 19, 2002
Guam National Guard Counter Drug Program, Drug Test Certification, for 7 Apr 2002 random testing, dtd Aug 19, 2002
Harmon Doctors’ Clinic report of drug testing, dtd May 3, 2002
Nichols Institute Substance Abuse Testing, dtd Dec 23, 1995
Recommendation Letter from M_ Z. B_, Lt Governor, undtd
Recommendation Letter from P_ J_ V_, Pastor, Our Lady of Mt. Carmel, dtd Jul 3, 2002
Character Statement/Letter of Recommendation from P_ J. S_, Jr., dtd May 30, 2002
Letter of Recommendation from F_ C. R_, Raytheon Technical Services Guam, dtd May 2, 2002
Letter of Recommendation from J_ A. F_, MCC Supervisor, dtd Mar 4, 2002
Character Reference ltr from V_ L. G_, retired MSgt, USMC, dtd Jan 16, 2002
Oath of Extension of Enlistment, Army National Guard, dtd Jul 12, 2002
Applicant’s Active Duty Order (Army National Guard), dtd Aug 19, 2002
Certificate of Appreciation, Guam National Guard Counterdrug Program, dtd Oct 27, 2002
Applicant’s Active Duty Order (Army National Guard), dtd Oct 31, 2002
Applicant’s Active Duty Order (Army National Guard), dtd Jan 21, 2003
Course Completion Diploma, Basic Rifle Infantryman, Skill Level 1, 11B (RC), Army National Guard, dtd Feb 7, 2003
Service School Academic Evaluation, dtd Feb 7, 2003
Applicant’s Active Duty Order (Army National Guard), dtd Jan 21, 2003
Copy of Applicant’s Army National Guard Identification Card, expiration Apr 24, 2003
Applicant’s Active Duty Order (Army National Guard), dtd Apr 8, 2003
Copy of Applicant’s Army National Guard Identification Card, expiration Sep 30, 2003
Board for Correction of Naval Records ltr to Applicant, dtd Mar 15, 2003

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   None
	Inactive: USMCR(J)		900427 - 900514	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  900515		Date of Discharge:  940701

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    04  01  17
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  19			Years Contracted:  4 

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  33

Highest Rank:  Cpl

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Proficiency:  4.4 (10)			Conduct:  4.1 (10)

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  Rifle Sharpshooter, MM(2), GCM, NDSM, SSDR(w/1 Star), MUC

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/Misconduct-Drug abuse (with administrative discharge board), authority:  MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6210.5.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

900424:	Applicant briefed upon and certified understanding of Marine Corps policy concerning illegal use of drugs.

940324:	NAVDRUGLAB, San Diego, CA, reported Applicant’s urine sample, received 11MAR94, tested positive for methamphetamine.

940328:	SACO:  Recommend discharge, tested positive for METHAM on 940308 during unit sweep urinalysis, and it is recommended he be held strictly accountable for his actions.

940331:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 112a:  Did on or about 0730, 8 Mar 94, on or in the surrounding community of MCB Camp Pendleton, CA, wrongfully and willfully use methamphetamine.
Awarded reduction to E-3, forfeiture of $511.00 pay per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duties for 45 days (forfeiture of  $511.00 pay for 1 month and restriction for 45 days suspended for 6 months).  Not appealed.

940420:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse as evidenced by illegal use of drug.

940420:	Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge Board.

940504:	Commanding Officer, 1st Maintenance Battalion, 1st FSSG, FMFPac, Camp Pendleton, recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.

940509:	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, and by a vote of 2 to 1 that the misconduct warranted separation, and recommended by a vote of 1 to 1 to 1, that the characterization of service be honorable, under honorable conditions (general), and under other than honorable conditions.

940509:	Senior Member, Administrative Discharge Board, advised CG, 1ST FSSG FMFPAC, Camp Pendleton, since the Board did not arrive at a majority opinion concerning characterization of service that if separation authority deems it absolutely necessary for a discharge characterization to receive two votes, Senior Member requests that his vote be counted as a vote to characterize the discharge as Under Honorable Conditions (General).

9405:	Applicant consent to be discharged on 940610 in lieu of normal or established date of release/discharge on 940514.  [Exact date unreadable]

940512:	SJA review found the case sufficient in law and fact.

940513:	GCMCA [CG, 1st FSSG, FMFPAC, Camp Pendleton] directed the Applicant's discharge with a general (under 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 19940701 with a general (under 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 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.  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 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