ex-, USMC

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received:  20100413
Characterization of Service Received:  
Narrative Reason for Discharge:  
Authority for Discharge:  MARCORSEPMAN 

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

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive:	USMCR (DEP)	20010131 - 20010819  	Active:		20010820 - 20050125  

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment:  20050126	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Months
Date of Discharge:  20080219	Highest Rank:  
Length of Service:    Year(s)    Month(s)  24  Day(s)
Education Level:  	AFQT:  50
MOS:  3432 / 4671
Proficiency/Conduct Marks (# of occasions):   () /  ()	Fitness Reports:  

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	Rifle         JMUA MM CoC CoA

Periods of UA/CONF:  	NJP:  	SCM:  	SPCM:  	CC:  	

Retention Warning Counseling:  

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.  Paragraph 6419, SEPARATION IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT-MARTIAL, 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 IV, Para 403m(7)(b), Presumption Concerning Court-Martial Specifications.

C.  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.	Applicant contends her post-service achievements warrant consideration for a discharge upgrade.
2.	Applicant contends her discharge was inequitable based on the evidence, findings, and recommendations of the Article 32 Investigating Officer’s report to the convening authority.

Decision

Date:  20110629		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 two decisional issues for the Board’s consideration.  The Board completed a thorough review of the circumstances that led to  discharge and the discharge process to ensure  discharge met the pertinent standards of equity and propriety.  The Applicant’s record of service did not include any 6105 retention counseling warnings, commanding officer’s nonjudicial punishment (NJP), or trial by courts-martial.  The Applicant had a pre-service drug waiver for using marijuana  prior to entering the Marine Corps, and acknowledged  complete understanding of the Marine Corps Policy Concerning Illegal Use of Drugs on 29 January 2001.  The record did reflect that the Applicant, as a result of a federal law enforcement narcotics investigation of her husband, was implicated in and charged with offenses involving the purchase, transport, preparation, and distribution for sale of illegal drugs to include marijuana and cocaine.  The Applicant was referred for trial by Special Court-Martial on 4 May 2007.  On 29 Jan 2008, the Applicant, after consulting with her defense counsel, submitted a request for an administrative separation in lieu of trial to the Commander, Marine Forces Reserve, in which she offered to plead guilty to possession of marijuana in exchange for administrative separation, thereby avoiding possible conviction (felony) at trial by courts-martial, imprisonment up to 15 years, and a punitive discharge.  On 31 Jan 2008, the Commander, Marine Forces Reserve, accepted the Applicant’s request for administrative separation and directed she receive an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge.  The Applicant was separated on 19 Feb 2008 with an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge.

:  (Decisional) ()  .  The Applicant contends her post-service achievements warrant consideration for a discharge upgrade.  The NDRB considers post-service conduct in order to determine if the misconduct committed during active duty was indicative of the Applicant’s character or an aberration.  However, there is no law or regulation, that provides an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving the service.  Normally, to permit relief, a procedural impropriety or inequity must have been found to have existed during the period of enlistment in question.  The Applicant, in her request for discharge review, provided a personal statement referring to her post-service accomplishments.  Additionally, during the personal hearing testimony, the Applicant stated she had been working steadily in pursuit of her advanced education goals.  However, she failed to provide adequate documentation and evidence on her behalf to support a thorough post-service conduct review.  On page 4, Item 8, in the instructions for completion of DD Form 293, the Applicant is notified to submit evidence “which substantiate or relate directly to your issues in Item 6” (Issues: Why an upgrade or change is requested and justification for the request).  Additionally, upon receipt of the Applicant’s DD Form 293, the NDRB mails an acceptance letter that includes Information Concerning Review Procedures, which discusses the submission of additional documents in paragraph 3, Submission of Evidence, and in the last section on page 4, Information Pertaining to a Review Based Upon Post-Service Conduct.  Even if the Applicant could have produced additional evidence to support a review based on her post-service conduct, post-service conduct alone does not guarantee an upgrade.  The Board, after considering all the facts and circumstances surrounding the Applicant’s case, to include testimony given by the Applicant at the personal hearing, determined that this issue did not provide a basis for which relief could be granted.  Relief denied.

:  (Decisional) ()  .  The Applicant contends her discharge was inequitable based on the evidence, findings, and recommendations of the Article 32 Investigating Officer’s report to the convening authority.  In the Investigating Officer’s report (dated 30 Oct 2007), he states: “The evidence did establish an agreement between the Applicant’s husband and the Applicant to distribute two pounds of marijuana to another individual”; “the evidence did support one of the overt acts alleged, i.e., that the Applicant assisted in the preparation of marijuana for sale and distribution by providing plastic bags for the packaging of marijuana”; and “the evidence also established the Applicant helped in the weighing of marijuana for distribution to another individual.”  Based on the evidence available from the federal law enforcement investigation and subsequent Article 32 investigation, the Applicant’s command determined the evidence to be substantive and thereby met the established standards required for referral of charges for Special Court-Martial.

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.  Since the NDRB is not an investigative body, only credible facts and documentary evidence submitted by the Applicant and the service and medical records available are utilized when conducting a detailed examination for purposes of discharge review.  In conjunction with the Applicant’s testimony given during the hearing, the Board discussed, analyzed, and deliberated on the facts and circumstances surrounding the events that led to her discharge.  After extensive and careful consideration, the Board found, by a 3-2 vote, that the Applicant’s discharge was proper and equitable.  Accordingly, the Board found the Applicant’s issue did not provide a basis for which relief could be granted.  Relief denied.

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

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