ex-, USMC

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received:  20100713
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)	19991028 - 20000820  	Active:	

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment:  20000821	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Months
Date of Discharge:  20061205	Highest Rank:  
Length of Service:    Years    Month  03  Days
Education Level:  	AFQT:  45
MOS:  6153
Proficiency/Conduct Marks (# of occasions):   (6) /  (6)	Fitness Reports:  
Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	Rifle  NDSM SSDR LoA MM 

Periods of UA:  

NJP:  NONE	SCM:  NONE	CC:  	Retention Warning Counseling:  None

SPCM:  
- 20030520:	Article  (Wrongful use possession, etc of a controlled substance; 7 separate uses of Methamphetamines)
	Sentence:  , FOP, CONF 90 days (20030520 – 20030801, 74 days served), 

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 1105, DISCHARGE ADJUDGED BY SENTENCE OF 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)(a), 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.	Nondecisional issues: The Applicant seeks an upgrade in the characterization of his service received at discharge in order to facilitate access to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) educational benefits. 

2.	Decisional issues: The Applicant contends that he was young and immature at the time of his misconduct and seeks clemency in the review of his discharge characterization.

Decision

Date:  20111104	                  Location: Washington D.C.	 Representation: 

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

Discussion

In reviewing discharges, the NDRB 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.  With respect to a discharge adjudged by a court-martial case, 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.  In response to the Applicant’s clemency request, relevant and material facts stated in a court-martial specification are presumed by the NDRB to be established facts.  The Applicant’s case was considered under the pertinent standards of equity to determine if any factors in this particular case merited clemency.  

The Applicant’s service record indicates he entered military service at age 17 (with parental consent) on a 4-year enlistment contract under an Aviation Mechanic Training guarantee.  The Applicant’s enlistment record reflects his entry into military service with a pre-service waiver for illegal drug use (marijuana).  The Applicant acknowledged his complete understanding of the Marine Corps Policy Concerning Illegal Use of Drugs on 27 October 1999 as a function of his application for waiver with the Recruiting Station Commanding Officer regarding the Applicant’s pre-service illegal drug use.  The highest rank achieved by the Applicant during his enlistment was Lance Corporal\ E-3.        

The Applicant’s period of service under review reflects punitive punishment as adjudged by a trial by Special Court-Martial convened between 12 March and 20 May 2003.  The Applicant was subject to Special Court-Martial for alleged violations of Article 112(a) (Wrongful use, possession, etc of controlled substance - 2 specifications, covering 8 specified uses of methamphetamines).  A qualified legal defense counsel represented him during his trial by Special Court-Martial.  In accordance with a signed pre-trial agreement, the Applicant agreed to request trial by military judge alone and further elected to plead guilty to the specifications of violation of Article 112(a) with substitution of wording as agreed to in pre-trial motions and provide a written stipulation to the facts of his plea of guilty.  In consideration, the Convening Authority withdrew the excepted wording and agreed to limit any adjudged period of confinement to no more than 160 days if a Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD) was adjudged.  Given the facts of the case, the trial judge awarded the Applicant a Bad Conduct Discharge, ordered that he be confined for a period of 90 days, ordered a forfeiture of pay, and reduced the Applicant in rank to Private/E-1.  The case was submitted for review with assignment of error (right to speedy trail, appellate review) to the U.S. Navy–Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals; it was reviewed and the findings were affirmed on 30 August 2006.  Subsequently, the Navy Marine Corps Appellate Leave Activity ordered the Bad Conduct Discharge executed and the Applicant was discharged on 05 December 2006.   

(Nondecisional Issue)  The Applicant seeks an upgrade in the characterization of his service at discharge from Bad Conduct to General (Under Honorable Conditions) in order to facilitate access to VA benefits (health and education).  There is no requirement, or law, that grants re-characterization solely on the issue of obtaining veterans health and educational benefits.  Additionally, the NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities or facilitating employment opportunities.  With respect to a Bad Conduct Discharge, regulations limit the NDRB’s review solely to a determination of clemency in consideration of the equity of the discharge.  As such, this issue does not serve to provide a foundation upon which the NDRB can grant relief.  

(Decisional Issues) (Clemency/Equity) – CLEMENCY NOT WARRANTED.  The Applicant contends that he was young and immature at the time of his misconduct and seeks clemency in the review of his discharge characterization.  The NDRB conducted a thorough review of the Applicant’s discharge under the pertinent standard of equity to determine if any factors in this particular case merited clemency.  In response to the Applicant’s clemency request, relevant and material facts stated in a court-martial specification are presumed by the NDRB to be established facts.

The NDRB recognizes that many of our service members are young at the time they enlist for service, but most manage to serve honorably.  While it is understood that some members may be less mature than others, the NDRB does not view a member’s youthfulness to be a mitigating factor or a sufficient reason for misconduct, especially repetitive misconduct involving drugs.  The NDRB determined that the Applicant’s youth or immaturity was not a mitigating factor in this case.  Certain serious offenses warrant separation from the service to maintain proper order and discipline.  Violation of Article 112a is one such offense requiring mandatory processing for separation, regardless of grade or time in service.  This action usually results in an administrative separation and an unfavorable characterization of discharge or, at a maximum, a punitive discharge and possible confinement if adjudicated and awarded as part of a sentence by a special or general court-martial.  In the Applicant’s case, the command opted to pursue the punitive discharge process instead of the more lenient administrative discharge.  

The Applicant was charged with 10 uses of methamphetamines (three uses were later removed from the charges pursuant to the pre-trial agreement).  The command determined this repetitive misconduct to be willful and deliberate.  To compound matters, after being arraigned on the charges by the Military Judge, but while awaiting the start of the trial, the Applicant failed a command urinalysis in which his sample tested positive for methamphetamines.  The NDRB found the evidence of record did not contain sufficient mitigating or extenuating factors to offset the seriousness of the offenses for which the discharge was awarded.  Given the illegal use of a controlled substance, in violation of Federal and State laws, Department of Defense Regulations, Marine Corps Policy, and service ethos, coupled with the repetitive and deliberate nature of that misconduct, the NDRB agreed unanimously that the punishment, as awarded, was equitable, and that relief in the form of clemency was not warranted.  Accordingly, relief is denied.  

Summary:  After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service,  record entries, the verbatim record of trial, and the discharge process, the NDRB determined that   Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall  BAD CONDUCT DISCHARGE 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