ex-, USMC  

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received:  20090818
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)	20010822 - 20020818  	Active:	

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment:  20020819	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Months
Date of Discharge:  20051031	Highest Rank:  
Length of Service:    Year(s)    Month(s)  13  Day(s)
Education Level:  	AFQT:  70
MOS:  2111
Proficiency/Conduct Marks (# of occasions):   () /  ()	Fitness Reports:  

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	Rifle , , , , ,   

Periods of UA/CONF:  

NJP:  

- 20040401:	Article  (Failure to obey order or regulation, did not conduct himself as sentry on post)
	Article  (Fell asleep on post as a sentry, on 30 March 2004)
	Awarded:    Suspended:  

- 20040425:	Article  (Failure to obey order or regulation, did not conduct himself as sentry on post)
	Article  (Fell asleep on post as a sentry, on 8 April 2004)
	Awarded:    Suspended:  

SCM:  	SPCM:  	CC:  

Retention Warning Counseling:  

- 20030121:	For unacceptable performance, and violation of Article 92, by getting a tattoo while assigned to this command.

- 20030227:	For unacceptable performance, and academic failure, on two attempts you failed to obtain a minimum score of 70/80% on a Job Knowledge Test.

- 20050215:	For alcohol-related incident at barrack 14031, for Article 92 of the UCMJ, specifically underage drinking.

- 20050330:	6105 counseling for violation of Art 92: Failure to obey order or regulation, and Art 134: falling asleep on post.

- 20050330:	For violation of article 92 of the UCMJ failure to obey an order. You failed various times to obey orders not to consume alcohol while under the legal age of 21.

- 20050425: 	For the following deficiencies pertaining to my pattern of misconduct: Article 92, failure to obey order or regulation, and Art 134: General article, fell asleep on post.  A 6105 counseling for violation of article 92, failure to obey an order by getting a tattoo.  A 6105 counseling for violation of article 92, underage drinking.

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.  Paragraph 6210, MISCONDUCT, of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16F), effective 1 September 2001 until Present. 

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

Issue 1:  The Applicant contends that his characterization of service at discharge was inequitable in that it was inconsistent with the policies and traditions of the United States Marine Corps and that his issues were resultant from his combat service and the resulting Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).  

Decision

Date:  20110315           	   Location: Washington D.C.	      Representation: 

By a vote of  the Characterization shall  .
By a vote of  the Narrative Reason shall  .

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 governmental affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the Applicant.  The Applicant identified one decisional issue to the NDRB.  The NDRB completed a thorough review of the circumstances that led to the Applicant’s discharge, and the discharge process, to ensure the discharge met the pertinent standards of equity and propriety.  

The Applicant entered active duty military service at age 18 on a four-year contract with a guarantee for training as an ordnance technician.  He entered the service without requirement for any waivers to enlistment conditions or standards.  The Applicant’s record of military service documents that he is a combat veteran, deploying to a designated combat zone, conducting combat operations in the Al-Anbar province of Iraq in support of Operation IRAQI FREEDOM from February to September 2004.  

The Applicant’s record of service contained six retention-counseling warnings and two nonjudicial punishments for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), specifically, violation of Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation, 2 specifications: did not conduct himself as sentry on post) and violation of Article 134 (Fell asleep on post as a sentry in a combat zone (Iraq), 2 specifications: on 30 March 2004 and 8 April 2004).  Furthermore, the Applicant’s service record reflects extensive alcohol-related incidents and counseling for those issues. 

The Applicant was afforded training and counseling regarding alcohol use and abuse via Alcohol Impact Training classes and Intensive Outpatient Alcohol Treatment.  Additionally, the Applicant requested additional alcohol treatment assistance via attendance at a Level III Inpatient Treatment Program; he was diagnosed with chronic alcoholism and recommended for inpatient hospitalization by both the medical and psychiatry staff evaluation, but was not afforded that opportunity by his command.  Since his separation from the Marine Corps, the Applicant has received treatment through the Department of Veterans Affairs for his in-service diagnosis of chronic alcoholism and was subsequently diagnosed with severe PTSD and placed in a treatment program.    

Based on the continued pattern of alcohol-related incidents and the offenses committed by the Applicant, his command administratively processed him for separation.  When notified of administrative separation processing using the administrative board procedure, the Applicant elected to exercise his right to consult with a qualified legal counsel and submit a written statement to the separation authority, but did not request a hearing before an administrative board.

:  (Decisional) () PARTIAL .  The Applicant contends that his characterization of service at discharge was inequitable in that it was inconsistent with the policies and traditions of the United States Marine Corps and that his issues were resultant from his combat service and resulting PTSD.  The NDRB reviews the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge individually, on a case-by-case basis.  If such a review reveals an impropriety or inequity, relief is in order.  Regulations permit relief on equitable grounds if the Applicant’s discharge is inconsistent with the standards of discipline of the Naval service.  The NDRB completed a thorough review of the Applicant’s issues and the discharge process and determined that the discharge met the pertinent standard of propriety in accordance with the Marine Corps Separation and 

Retirement Manual (MARCORSEPMAN).  The NDRB conducted a thorough review of the Applicant’s combat deployment history, the timing and the circumstances involved in the Applicant’s alcohol-related incidents, coupled with the Applicant’s in-service and post-service mental health diagnoses of alcoholism and PTSD by appropriately credentialed mental health care providers, and his outpatient and inpatient treatment program attendances.  Given the unique circumstances involved in the Applicant’s individual case and the diagnosis of chronic, severe PTSD, the NDRB determined that the discharge, as awarded, was inequitable.

In accordance with the MARCORSEPMAN, an Honorable characterization of service is warranted when the quality of a member’s service generally meets the standards of acceptable conduct and performance for naval personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization of service would be clearly inappropriate.  A General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge is warranted when the quality of the member’s service has been honest and faithful, but significant negative aspects of the member’s conduct or performance of duty outweighed the positive aspects of the member’s service record.

After a thorough review of the facts and circumstances unique to this case, the NDRB discerned an inequity in the discharge characterization of the Applicant’s service.  Based on the Applicant's documentation and his official service and medical records, coupled with the facts and circumstances unique to this case, the NDRB determined that relief was proper and warranted.  The NDRB determined that the Applicant’s service was honest and faithful, but significant aspects of his conduct and performance outweighed the positive aspects of his service record.  As such, the NDRB voted unanimously that an upgrade in the Applicant’s characterization of service at discharge to General (Under Honorable Conditions) was appropriate and warranted.  However, the NDRB determined that the narrative reason for separation was proper and accurately reflected the Applicant’s reason for separation; therefore, it shall remain Misconduct.  Full relief to Honorable was not granted due to the serious and repetitive nature of the misconduct.     

Summary:  After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service,  record entries, and discharge process, the Board found  Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall  ; however, the narrative reason for separation shall remain .

The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing for a period of fifteen years from the date of his discharge.  The Applicant is directed to the Addendum, specifically the paragraphs titled Additional Reviews and Post-Service Conduct.

ADDENDUM:  Information for the Applicant

Complaint Procedures:  If you believe 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:  After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application is received at the NDRB within 15 years of the Applicant’s 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.  There are veterans organizations such as the American Legion and the Disabled American Veterans that are willing to provide guidance to former service members in their efforts to obtain a discharge upgrade.  If a former member has been discharged for more than 15 years, has already been granted a personal appearance hearing or has otherwise exhausted their 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 U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determines eligibility for post-service benefits, not the NDRB.  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 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 is processed subsequently for an administrative involuntary separation or is referred to a court martial for misconduct, the disability evaluation is suspended pending the outcome of the non-disability proceedings.  If the action includes either a punitive or administrative discharge for misconduct or for any basis wherein an Other Than Honorable discharge is authorized, 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 BCNR can grant this type of narrative reason change.

Automatic Upgrades - There is no law or regulation that provides for an unfavorable discharge to be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct subsequent to leaving naval service.  

Post-Service Conduct:  The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge.  Outstanding post-service conduct, 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, is considered during Board reviews.  Documentation to support a post-service conduct upgrade includes, but is not limited to: a verifiable continuous employment record; marriage and children’s birth certificates (if applicable); character witness statements; documentation of community or church service; certification of non-involvement with civil authorities; evidence of financial stability or letters of good standing from banks, credit card companies, or other financial institutions; attendance at or completion of higher education (official transcripts); and documentation of a drug-free lifestyle.   The Applicant is advised that completion of these items alone does not guarantee the upgrade of an unfavorable discharge, as each discharge is reviewed by the Board on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate  in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member’s overall character.

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