ex-, USMC

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received:  20091022
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)	20040511 - 20050213  	Active:	

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment:  20050214	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Months
Date of Discharge:  20090826	Highest Rank:  
Length of Service:    Year(s)    Month(s)  19  Day(s)
Education Level:  	AFQT:  53
MOS:  6172
Proficiency/Conduct Marks (# of occasions):   () /  ()	Fitness Reports:  

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	Rifle , Pistol ,  (X2), w/1 Campaign Star, , ,  CoC (Individual award)

NJP:  

- 20070806:	Article  (Failed to obey a lawful order, wrongfully consuming alcohol) 
	Awarded:    Suspended:  

- 20070907:	Article  (Failed to obey order or regulation); 2 specifications
	Specification 1: Drinking alcohol while on restriction 
	Specification 2: Possession in excess of a six-pack of malt beverage or one bottle of unfortified wine on BEQ premises, to wit: multiple bottles of hard alcohol and a keg of beer in the barracks. 
	Awarded:   Suspended:  

- 20090522:	Article 86 (UA 20090518-20090519, 1 day) 
	Awarded:  FOP   Suspended:  

SCM:  

- 20090330:	Article  (Wrongful use of a controlled substance, dimethoxyamphetamine)
	Sentence:    (20090403-20090425, 23 days)

SPCM:  

CC:  

Retention Warning Counseling:  

- 20051109:	For exercising poor judgment by putting himself in a compromising situation that involved under-age alcohol  

- 20070806:	For being found guilty at NJP for 2 violations of Article 92, failure to obey order or regulation  

- 20090615:	For being found guilty at Summary Court-Martial proceedings for violation of Article 112a, unauthorized drug use 

- 20090616:	For being found guilty at NJP proceedings for violations of Article 86, absent without leave from 20090518-20090519 

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

The NDRB did note administrative error(s) on the original DD Form 214:

	  “UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS”

The NDRB will recommend to the Commandant of the Marine Corps that the DD 214 be corrected as appropriate.

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:		Rehabilitation/Treatment:		Criminal Records:	
	Personal Documentation:		Community Service:		References:	
	Department of VA letter:		Other Documentation:	
		Additional Statements:
	From Applicant:		From/To Representation:		From/To Congress member:	

Pertinent Regulation/Law

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

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.	Nondecisional issues: The Applicant seeks an upgrade in discharge characterization of service in order to be eligible for unspecified compensation benefits and medical benefits from the Veterans Administration (VA). 

2.	Decisional issues: (Equity) The Applicant contends that his misconduct was the result of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), which mitigates his misconduct and should be considered in determination of his overall characterization of service.   

Decision

Date:  20101220		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 NDRB 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 for the NDRB’s consideration.  In consideration of the Applicant’s identified issue of equity, 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’s record of service included four 6105 retention-counseling warnings and three non-judicial punishments for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 92 (Violation of a lawful order or regulation; specifically, wrongfully consuming alcohol resulting in a civilian DUI, possession of excessive alcohol in the barracks in violation of Base regulation, and violating lawful restriction orders by consuming alcohol) and Article 86 (Absence without leave; specifically, absenting himself from his unit without authority).  Additionally, the Applicant was referred to trial by Special Court-Martial for violation of Article 112a (Wrongful use, possession, etc. of a controlled substance – dimethoxyamphetamine).  The Applicant accepted a pre-trial agreement subjecting him to a lesser venue of trial by Summary Court-Martial in return for his pleading guilty and waiving his right to an administrative board hearing as part of his administrative separation process.  

The Applicant’s enlistment record reflects his entry into military service with a pre-service waiver for drug use - marijuana, without police involvement.  Furthermore, the Applicant acknowledged his complete understanding of the Marine Corps Policy Concerning Illegal Use of Drugs, in writing, on 10 May 2004.  Based on the Article 112a violation, processing for administrative separation is mandatory.  The NDRB reviewed the Applicant’s administrative separation package: as stipulated in his pre-trial agreement, when notified of administrative separation processing using the  notification procedure, the Applicant exercised his right to consult with a qualified counsel, waived his right to submit a written statement to the Separation Authority, and did not exercise his right to an administrative board hearing.  

The Applicant’s record of service clearly identifies him as a combat veteran, having served two deployments in the Al-Anbar province of Iraq in support of Operation IRAQI FREEDOM.  The Applicant served one deployment as a CH-46 aircraft Crew Chief and his second deployment as a flight line mechanic for the CH-46.   

The Applicant provided no additional documentation for the NDRB’s consideration or to rebut the government’s presumption of regularity that was not already documented in his official military record of service and official medical record. 

:  (Nondecisional):  The Applicant seeks an upgrade in discharge characterization of service in order to be eligible for unspecified compensation benefits and medical benefits from the Veterans Administration.  This issue does not serve to provide a foundation upon which the Board can grant relief; there is no requirement or law that grants the NDRB the authority to re-characterize discharges based solely on the issue of obtaining veterans benefits.  The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs determines eligibility for post-service benefits, not the NDRB.  The VA conducts its own determination of eligibility based on service records and input from an Applicant upon their request.  The Applicant should refer to the Veterans Administration website (http://www1.va.gov/opa/Is1/1.asp) for additional assistance.  Additionally, 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 solely to a determination of the propriety and the equity of a discharge.  The Applicant is directed to the Addendum of this document regarding these issues.

:  (Decisional) ()  .  The Applicant contends that his misconduct was the result of PTSD, which mitigates the nature of his misconduct and should be considered in the determination of his overall characterization of service.  The NDRB conducted 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 was recommended for administrative separation based on a dual notification of Misconduct (Pattern of Misconduct) regarding his violations of Article 86, 92, and 112a, and Misconduct (Drug Abuse) pursuant to his violation of the Marine Corps Policy on drugs as evidenced by the Summary Court-Martial for the illegal use of dimethoxyamphetamine.    

Despite a service member’s prior record of service, certain serious offenses, though isolated, warrant separation from the Naval service in order to maintain proper order and discipline.  Violation of Article 112a is one such offense, requiring mandatory processing for administrative separation on the first offense, regardless of grade or time in service.  This action usually results in an unfavorable characterization of discharge or, at a maximum, a punitive discharge with the possibility of confinement if adjudicated and awarded as part of a sentence by a Special or General Court-Martial.  The command did not opt to pursue a punitive discharge, but instead, chose the more lenient administrative discharge process.  

On 14 August 2009, the Separation Authority approved the command’s recommendation for separation and directed the Applicant be discharged under other than honorable conditions for Misconduct due to drug abuse pursuant to paragraph 6210.5 of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual (MARCORSEPMAN) and Misconduct, Pattern of Misconduct pursuant to paragraph 6210.3 of the MARCORSEPMAN.  The primary basis for separation was directed to be Misconduct - Drug Abuse with the corresponding separation code of HKK1 (Drug Abuse - Board Waived).  The Applicant was evaluated at the Consolidated Substance Abuse Counseling Center and was determined to meet the requirements for Amphetamine Abuse (305.7) and Alcohol Dependence in partial remission (303.90) of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV).  The Applicant was recommended for intensive outpatient treatment for his substance abuse issues; he successfully completed this treatment program and was placed on a one-year aftercare program.  The Applicant was discharged subsequently from service on 26 August 2009.  The NDRB determined that the separation was proper and the narrative reason for separation was accurate.  A change would be inappropriate.  Accordingly, on the propriety issue, relief denied.

The Applicant contends that PTSD “brought on and instigated” his misconduct and the resulting non-judicial punishments and Summary Court-Martial.  As such, the Applicant contends that the determination of characterization of service should have considered PTSD as a mitigating factor to the misconduct, warranting an Honorable characterization of service.  The government enjoys a presumption of regularity in the conduct of its affairs.  The Applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support his issue.  The NDRB found no medical diagnosis in the record to support the Applicant's claim, nor did the Applicant produce any medical diagnosis by competent medical authority to support his claim.  The Applicant was evaluated by his command for PTSD as a function of the administrative separation process; the results of this screening did not indicate a need for further evaluation by mental health care professionals.  While awaiting final action on the administrative separation, the Applicant was re-screened for PTSD indications; based on the screening checklist, the Applicant was recommended to seek further evaluation and diagnosis by credentialed mental healthcare providers.  The Applicant was not diagnosed in service with PTSD, but was advised to seek further evaluation from the nearest VA Medical Center upon separation.   
        
The Applicant’s record of misconduct throughout his period of service stems from his alcohol use and abuse and culminated with illegal use of methamphetamines.  The Applicant’s service record documents that he was counseled - formally, in writing - in November 2005 for an alcohol-related incident and that he was advised that any further actions of this nature could result in administrative measures being taken or being charged with violation of the UCMJ.  This counseling for alcohol-related misconduct preceded the Applicant’s service in a combat zone.  Moreover, the Applicant’s record documents his admission to an extensive history of alcoholism, beginning at age 10 with beer, escalating to hard alcohol use by age 12, and leading eventually to marijuana use, pre-service.  While the Applicant may feel that PTSD was the underlying cause of his misconduct, the record clearly reflects a pattern of willful misconduct that culminated with illegal use of drugs in direct violation of the Marine Corps Policy and demonstrated that he was unfit for further service.

Characterization of service at discharge is the recognition of a Marine’s performance and conduct during a period of enlistment and is not necessarily dependent upon the narrative reason for separation.  When the quality of a member’s service has met the standards of accepted conduct and performance of duty for military personnel, it is appropriate to characterize that service under Honorable conditions.  An Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge is warranted when a member engages in conduct involving one or more acts or omissions that constitute a significant departure from the conduct expected of members of the Naval service.  The NDRB determined the Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of service, reflected acts that were a significant departure from the conduct expected of a service member and the awarded characterization, as issued, was appropriate and was equitable.  Accordingly, relief denied.

Summary:  After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, medical and service record entries, and the discharge process, the Board found   Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall   and 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  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