ex-, USMC

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received:  20090331
Characterization of Service Received:  
Narrative Reason for Discharge:  
Authority for Discharge:  MARCORSEPMAN 

Applicant’s Request:  Characterization change to:  
		       Narrative Reason change to:  

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive:	USMCR (DEP)	20060823 - 20060917  	Active:	

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment:  20060918	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Months
Date of Discharge:  20081208	Highest Rank:  
Length of Service:    Year(s)    Month(s)  21  Day(s)
Education Level:  	AFQT:  70
MOS:  3531
Proficiency/Conduct Marks (# of occasions):   () /  ()	Fitness Reports:  

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	Rifle     LOA

Periods of UA/CONF:  

NJP:  
- 20070313:	Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation), 3 specifications
	Awarded:     Suspended:  

SCM:  

SPCM:  

CC:  

Retention Warning Counseling:  

- 20070313:	For NJP failure to obey orders by purchasing, consuming alcohol and running from the post MPs.

- 20070515:	For failure to obey order or regulation by failing to remain with liberty buddy and failure to sign back into the liberty logbook.

- 20080108:	For assignment to command’s Remedial Physical Conditioning Program for a period of 6 months.

- 20080130:	For negotiating an unsafe lane change, failure to observe and maintain a safe clearance and impacting.

- 20080716:	For depression and having suicidal ideations.

- 20080813:	For alcohol rehabilitation failure and his diagnosis of Personality Disorder.

Types of Documents Submitted/reviewed

Related to Military Service: 
              DD 214:  	                            Service/Medical Record:             Other Records:  

Related to Post-Service Period:	
	Employment:			Finances:			Education/Training:	
	Health/Medical Records:		Substance Abuse:			Criminal Records:	
	Family/Personal Status: 		Community Service:  		References:  		
              Additional Statements: 
                             From Applicant:  	From Representation:         	From Congress member:    

                    Other Documentation:  

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A.  The Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1600.19F), effective 1 September 2001 until Present, Paragraph 6209, ALCOHOL REHABILITATION FAILURE.

B.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part II, Para 211, Regularity of Government Affairs, Part V, Para 502, Propriety and Para 503, Equity.

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

Applicant’s Issues

1.  Decisional Issue.  Erroneously released from alcohol rehabilitation program too early.
2.  Decisional Issue.  Discharge was improper because it was rushed.

Decision

Date:  20091105    	Location: Washington D.C.	 Representation: 

By a vote of  the Characterization shall  .
By a vote of  the Narrative Reason shall  ALCOHOL REHABILITATION FAILURE.     .

Discussion

The NDRB, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge, is authorized to change the character of service and the reason for discharge if such change is warranted.  In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of Government affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the Applicant.  The Applicant’s record of service reflects six 6105 counseling warnings, one Non-judicial Punishment (NJP) for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 92 (Failure to obey an order or regulation, 3 specifics of charge), and alcohol rehabilitation failure.  Based on the alcohol rehabilitation failure, his command administratively processed him for separation.  When notified of administrative separation processing, the Applicant consulted with qualified counsel and submitted a written statement.  The Applicant did not qualify for an administrative board.  

Issues 1 and 2:  ()  .  The Applicant states his discharge was improper because it was rushed and his regimental and naval hospital alcohol treatment records contained discrepancies concerning his release date from his alcohol rehabilitation after-care program.  He also states his service record contained documents which were not in the record during administrative discharge proceedings.  A review of his records revealed the Applicant had attended an out-patient substance abuse rehabilitation treatment program from 19 June 2007 until 10 July 2007, sponsored by the U.S. Naval Hospital, Okinawa, Japan.  His 12-month after care program was scheduled to end on 9 July 2008.  By his own admission, the Applicant ceased attending his weekly continuing care meetings during December 2007 and did not go to AA meetings as required because he felt there was too much emphasis on God vice personal efforts to stay sober.  On 23 January 2008, the Applicant signed an After Care Weekly Meeting Instruction which directed him to attend two AA classes per week and to refrain from consuming alcohol during this period of 52 weeks (1 year).  On 16 May 2008, the Applicant was admitted into the emergency room for detoxification after episodic alcohol consumption.  The Applicant told medical professionals, Lt A. Axxxx-Pxxx, MSC, USN and LCDR K.M. Pxxxx, MC, USN that he had engaged in binge drinking since he stopped attending his continuing care group in December 2007.  Based on the events, the NDRB determined that the Applicant’s contention that his discharge was erroneous because he was discharged a week early from his 12-month post rehabilitation after-care period has no merit.  His hospitalization and alcohol use (self-admission) were clearly grounds for discharging the Applicant for alcohol rehabilitation failure since they occurred before his one year after-care anniversary date.  While the Applicant believes that his record included an incomplete copy of his discharge package, the required documentation was present in his administrative separation proceedings package dated 10 October 2008, the date the Applicant was notified he was being processed for administrative discharge.  This was five months after he was hospitalized for alcohol detoxification.  Based on this timeline, the Board determined the Applicant’s claim his separation was “hurried” is without merit.  

Summary:  After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service,  Record, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found 

ADDENDUM:  Information for the Applicant

Complaint Procedures:  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 Instruction 1332.28, you may submit a complaint in accordance with Enclosure (5) of that Instruction to the Joint Service Review Activity, OUSD (P&R) PI-LP, The Pentagon, Washington, DC  20301-4000.  You should read Enclosure (5) of the Instruction 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 Instruction 1332.28 and other Decisional Documents by going online at “http://Boards.law.af.mil.”

Additional Reviews:  Subsequent to a document review, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application is received at the NDRB within 15 years from the date of discharge.  The Applicant can provide documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments or any additional evidence related to this discharge.  Representation at a personal appearance hearing is recommended but not required.  If a former member has been discharged for more than 15 years, has already been granted a personal appearance hearing or has otherwise exhausted his opportunities before the NDRB, the Applicant may petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR), 2 Navy Annex, Washington, DC 20370-5100 for further review.

Service Benefits:  The Veterans Administration determines eligibility for post-service benefits, not the Naval Discharge Review Board.  There is no requirement or law that grants recharacterization solely on the issue of obtaining Veterans' benefits and this issue does not serve to provide a foundation upon which the Board can grant relief.

Employment/Educational Opportunities:  The NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment or educational opportunities.  Regulations limit the NDRB’s review to a determination of the propriety and equity of the discharge.  

Reenlistment/RE-code:  Since the NDRB has no jurisdiction over reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Navy, Marine Corps, or any other of the Armed Forces, the NDRB is not authorized to change a reenlistment code.  Only the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) can make changes to reenlistment codes.  Additionally, the NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities.  An unfavorable “RE” code is, in itself, not a bar to reenlistment.  A request for a waiver can be submitted during the processing of a formal application for reenlistment through a recruiter.

Medical Conditions and Misconduct:  DoD disability regulations do not preclude a disciplinary separation.  Appropriate regulations stipulate that separations for misconduct take precedence over potential separations for other reasons.  Whenever a member is being processed through the Physical Evaluation Board, and subsequently is processed for an administrative involuntary separation or is referred to a court-martial for misconduct, the disability evaluation is suspended.  The Physical Evaluation Board case remains in suspense pending the outcome of the non-disability proceedings.  If the action includes either a punitive or administrative discharge for misconduct, the medical board report is filed in the member’s terminated health record.  Additionally, the NDRB does not have the authority to change a narrative reason for separation to one indicating a medical disability or other medical related reasons.”  Only the Board for Correction of Naval Records can grant this type of narrative reason change.

Automatic Upgrades - 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 Naval service.  The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the Applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review.  Examples of documentation that may be provided to the Board include proof of educational pursuits, verifiable employment records, documentation of community service, credible evidence of a substance free lifestyle and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities.  

Issues Concerning Bad-Conduct Discharges (BCD) – Because relevant and material facts stated in a court-martial specification are presumed by the NDRB to be established facts, issues relating to the Applicant’s innocence of charges for which he was found guilty cannot form a basis for relief.  With respect to a discharge adjudged by a special court-martial, the action of the NDRB is restricted to upgrades based on clemency.  Clemency is an act of leniency that reduces the severity of the punishment imposed.  The NDRB does not have the jurisdictional authority to review a discharge or dismissal resulting from a general court-martial.

Board Membership:  The names and votes of the members of the NDRB Board are recorded on the original of this document and may be obtained from the service records by writing to:

Secretary of the Navy Council of Review Boards
Attn:  Naval Discharge Review Board
720 Kennon Street SE Rm 309
Washington Navy Yard DC  20374-5023