ex-, USMC 

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received:  20110621
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)	20021019 - 20030629  	Active:	

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment:  20030630	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Months
Date of Discharge:  20060609	Highest Rank:  
Length of Service:    Year(s)    Month(s)  10  Day(s)
Education Level:  	AFQT:  70
MOS:  0311
Proficiency/Conduct Marks (# of occasions):   () /  ()	Fitness Reports:  

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	Rifle    (2)   

NJP:  

- 20051125:	Article  (UA 1630, 20051125 to 1000, 20051126)
	Article 92 (Failure to obey lawful order or regulation), 2 specifications
	Specification 1: Wrongfully leaving the limits of Camp Hansen without properly signing out with the Duty NCO to retrieve his liberty card
	Specification 2: Wrongfully allowing his liberty buddy to leave the group in a taxi to proceed back to Camp Hansen
	Awarded:     Suspended:     22 days

SCM:  

- 20060502:	Article  (Drugs - MDMA (Ecstasy)
	Sentence:    (20060502 - 20060525, 24 days)

SPCM:  	CC:  

Retention Warning Counseling:  

- 20051130:	For unauthorized absence and failure to obey order or regulation.

- 20060405:	For my illegal drug-related incident on 20060224.  Specifically, MDMA (Ecstasy) usage identified through urinalysis and confirmed by NAVDRUGLAB message dated 20060320.

- 20060407:	For pattern of misconduct and testing positive on a urinalysis test for a controlled substance, specifically MDMA (Ecstasy).

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.

C.  U.S. Code, Title 10, Section 1553 (d) (1) and (d) (2).

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

Applicant’s Issues

Decisional issues: The Applicant contends that his misconduct was an isolated incident in 35 months of what was otherwise meritorious service, to include combat service.  Additionally, the Applicant contends that his misconduct was a result of stress from personal family problems and depression and anxiety related to Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), which warrants consideration as extenuating and mitigating factors to his discharge and the characterization of service he received.

Decision

Date:  20111019	       	Location: Washington D.C.	 Representation: 

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

Discussion

In accordance with U.S. Code, Title 10, Section 1553 (d) (1), the Board included a member who is a physician, clinical psychologist, or psychiatrist.  In accordance with section 1553 (d) (2), the service secretary expedited a final decision and accorded the case sufficient priority to achieve an expedited resolution.

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 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 Applicant entered military service at age 18 on a four-year enlistment with a guaranteed contract of Infantry Option.  The Applicant’s enlistment record reflects entry into military service without waiver to enlistment and induction standards.  During the enlistment process, the Applicant acknowledged his complete understanding of the Marine Corps Policy Concerning the Illegal Use of Drugs - in writing - on 17 October 2002.  The Applicant completed two years and eleven months of his four-year enlistment obligation.  The Applicant completed a deployment as an Infantryman in the Al-Anbar Province of Iraq while conducting combat operations in support of Operation IRAQI FREEDOM (OIF).  The military service record further documents that he was awarded the Purple Heart Medal for enemy inflicted shrapnel wounds to his hand, face, and shoulder while engaged in combat actions on 12 July 2004 in the city of Ar-Ramadi, Iraq.  The Applicant’s record of service documents three paragraph 6105 retention-counseling warnings.  Moreover, it also documents one non-judicial punishment (NJP) (Nov 2005) and one summary court martial (May 2006) for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): specifically, Article 86 (Absence without leave - absented himself from his appointed place of duty without authority), Article 92 (Failure to obey an order or regulation - 2 specifications), and Article 112(a) (Wrongful use, possession, etc of a controlled substance - MDMA (Ecstasy).  Based on the violation of Article 112(a), processing for administrative separation, by service policy, was mandatory.  When notified of administrative separation processing using the  notification procedure, the Applicant exercised  right to consult with a qualified legal defense counsel, submitted a written statement for consideration by the Separation Authority, but did not request an administrative hearing board.

The Applicant was notified - in writing - of the Command’s intent to process the Applicant for administrative separation for Misconduct (Drug Abuse) in accordance with paragraph 6210.5 of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual (MARCORSEPMAN) and Misconduct (Pattern of Misconduct) in accordance with paragraph 6210.3.  The Applicant was advised that the least favorable characterization of his service at discharge was under other than honorable conditions and that characterization was what the Command was recommending he be awarded.  After review by the Staff Judge Advocate, the Separation Authority determined that the evidence of record was sufficient in law and fact to support the proposed discharge action.  He reviewed the chain of command’s recommendations regarding characterization of service, to include a personal statement from the Applicant apologizing for his actions and seeking consideration concerning the characterization of his service.  On 17 May 2006, the Separation Authority directed the Applicant be discharged with an Under Other Than Honorable 

Conditions characterization of service for Misconduct (Drug Abuse) and Misconduct (Pattern of Misconduct).  The Separation Authority directed that Misconduct (Drug Abuse) was the primary basis for discharge; he further directed that, upon his discharge, the Applicant receive an RE-4B re-entry code (not recommended for reenlistment, in service drug abuse).

(Decisional Issues)  ()  PARTIAL .  The Applicant contends that his misconduct was an isolated incident in 35 months of what was otherwise meritorious service, to include combat service.  Additionally, the Applicant contends that his misconduct was a result of stress from personal family problems and depression and anxiety related to PTSD.  

Propriety - The Applicant was recommended for administrative separation in accordance with paragraphs 6210.5 and 6210.3 of the MARCORSEPMAN.  The Applicant consulted with a qualified legal defense counsel and was notified properly of the proposed recommendation for separation; he acknowledged the separation process and elected his rights - in writing.  Naval Drug Lab screening results documented the presence of MDMA (Ecstasy) in the Applicant’s system and established by a preponderance of evidence that the Applicant had violated Article 112(a) of the UCMJ.  Likewise, the NJP and Summary Court-Martial, coupled with a retention warning, established the requirements for a pattern of misconduct basis for discharge action if the command felt that retention and rehabilitation were not warranted.  Processing for administrative separation for illegal drug use, however, was mandatory.  Based on the documentation of record, the NDRB determined that the separation was proper and the narrative reason for separation was accurate.  A change in narrative reason for separation would be inappropriate.  No relief based on propriety of the discharge action is warranted.

Equity - Despite a service member’s prior record of service, certain serious offenses warrant separation from the Naval Service in order to maintain good order and discipline.  Violation of Article 112(a) is one such offense, requiring mandatory processing for administrative separation, regardless of grade, combat experience, 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 Applicant did not contest the separation action and waived his right to defend himself at an administrative board hearing, though he did submit a letter apologizing for his actions and requesting that his service, coupled with combat service and injuries, be considered.  

The Applicant contends that his misconduct of record was resultant from diminished coping skills as he was suffering from diagnosed PTSD, complicated by severe family problems, which were mitigating factors.  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 requested the Applicant’s medical record; after an in-depth review, the contention of PTSD was established prior to his misconduct of record.  After a careful review of the Applicant’s combat deployment history, combat injuries, in-service mental health issues, and diagnosed PTSD, coupled with the marital problems of the Applicant while deployed, the NDRB determined the Applicant’s PTSD and personal problems were mitigating and contributory factors in his misconduct.

Given the facts of the record, the information provided by the Applicant, and the Applicant’s combat service, the NDRB determined that the Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, was honest and faithful, but that a significant negative aspect of the member’s conduct did outweigh the overall positive aspects of his record.  As such, given the facts and circumstances unique to this case, the NDRB determined partial relief was warranted based on equitable grounds.  The NDRB voted unanimously to upgrade the characterization of service at discharge to General (Under Honorable Conditions), but that no change to the narrative reason for separation is warranted.  An upgrade to Honorable was not granted due to the serious nature of the misconduct.

Summary:  After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, service and medical record entries, and discharge process, the NDRB determined that   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  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