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

 ex-LCpl, USMCR
Docket No. MD03-01149

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20030620.  The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable.  The Applicant requests a documentary record 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 20040423.  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.  “Dear Board Members,

Issue #1
I am proud of my past service in the Marine Corp.  Hard work, determination and integrity were a few characteristics that I personified in my MOS of food service.  My attendance and loyalty during Desert Storm was never unsatisfactory nor a question of doubt. After failing a urinalysis in 1993, I was demoted a rank from Cpl. to LCpl. with loss of pay.  Subsequently I was discharged “Other than honorable.”  My issue is that: This was an isolated incident in 4 years of service with no other adverse action!   For this reason I believe my discharge was inequitable.  The punishment was unforeseen.  I also feel it was extreme because it affects me too this day, (10 yrs). Every time I job search, not only am I reminded but also I feel disadvantaged compared to other Applicants.  It really shouldn’t be like this!  I served my country the best I could and believe it was better than “other than honorable”.  I pray your decision will be a just ful decision to upgrade my discharge.  Thank you sincerely.  Semper Fi, S_ G. P_

Issue #2

During my Active duty tour I was aware of Marines who were demoted a rank because of failing urinalysis test, not once, but twice!  They were never discharged for those occurrences.  I believe it was inequitable for me to be discharged while others were not!
Sincerely, S_ G_ P_ (Applicant)”

Documentation

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

Character statement, dated April 4, 2003
Meritorious Mast, dated November 22, 1991
Meritorious Mast cover sheet, dated November 25, 1991
Letter of appreciation, dated May 6, 1992
Letter of appreciation cover sheet, dated May 11, 1992
Promotion certificate, dated October 1, 1992
Certificate of completion, dated October 29, 1991
Applicant’s DD Form 214 for completion of required active duty for December 27, 1990 to July 8, 1991
Applicant’s DD Form 214 for initial active duty training for October 17, 1989 to April 13, 1900

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   None
	Inactive: None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  890831		Date of Discharge:  930803

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    01  00  07
	Inactive:  02  10  22

Age at Entry:  20			Years Contracted:  6

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  59

Highest Rank:  Cpl

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Proficiency:  4.5 (8)			Conduct:  4.5 (8)

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NDSM, SSDR, Letter of Appreciation, MM (2), MUC

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

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:

890831:	Applicant briefed upon and certified understanding of Marine Corps policy concerning illegal use of drugs.

891017:	Applicant reported for initial tour of active duty for training.

900413:	Applicant released from initial tour of active duty for training with an Honorable by reason of completion of required active service (USMCR) IADT.

901227:	Applicant reported for required active duty for training.

910708:	Applicant released from tour of active duty for training with an Honorable by reason of completion of required active service/recall to active duty (USMCR) EAS.

930518:	NAVDRUGLAB, Jacksonville, FL, reported Applicant’s urine sample, received 930511, tested positive for THC.

930522:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 112A:
Specification: Wrongful possession of a Schedule I controlled substance on 930502, to wit: THC.
Awarded forfeiture of $125.00 per month for 2 months, reduction to LCpl.  Not appealed.

930522:	Letter for unsatisfactory participation due to drug abuse personally delivered to Applicant.

930522:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.

930522:	Applicant advised of 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.

930618:	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 being tested positive for THC.  

930707:	SJA review determined the case sufficient in law and fact.

930707:	GCMCA [Marine Reserve Force] 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 19930803 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 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 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 employment opportunities, or for good conduct in civilian life, subsequent to leaving the service.  Relief not warranted.

Issue 2.  The Applicant’s statement does not refute the presumption of regularity concerning the equity of his discharge.  Relief denied.

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