ex-, USMC

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received:  20111012
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:	NONE		Active:	

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment:  19990220	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Months
Date of Discharge:  20050518	Highest Rank:  
Length of Service:
	Inactive:	  Year(s)    Month(s)  06  Day(s)
	Active:	  Year(s)    Month(s)  13  Day(s)
Education Level:  	AFQT:  92
MOS:  3043
Proficiency/Conduct Marks (# of occasions):   () /  ()	Fitness Reports:  

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	Rifle    AFRM with “M” CoA

Periods of UA/CONF:  

NJP:  
- 20040516:	Article  (Wrongful use, possession, etc. of a controlled substance, marijuana, 57 ng/ml)
	Awarded: (to E-2)    Suspended:   (suspend 6 months)

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.  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.	Applicant contends command impropriety regarding alleged illegal personal conduct of fellow Marines during combat operations in Iraq.  
2.	Applicant contends his misconduct was a result of self-medication in dealing with the effects of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) from his combat service in Iraq.
3.	Applicant contends the misconduct for which he was separated was an isolated incident in otherwise honorable service.
4.	Applicant contends his post-service achievements warrant consideration for a discharge upgrade.

Decision

Date:  20120625		Location: Washington D.C.	 Representation: 

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

Discussion

The Applicant contends the misconduct for which he was separated was a result of self-medication in dealing with the effects of PTSD from his combat service in Iraq.  A review of the Applicant’s records reveals that he served in Iraq in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom from March - September 2003.  In accordance with U.S. Code, Title X, Section 1553 (d)(1), the Naval Discharge Review 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 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 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 reflect   for  of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article  (Wrongful use, possession, etc of a controlled substance, marijuana, as evidenced by a positive urinalysis test conducted during a fitness for duty physical exam at Bethesda National Naval Medical Center, MD).  The Applicant did not have an enlistment waiver for illegal drug use prior to entering the Marine Corps; however, he did acknowledge his complete understanding of the Marine Corps Policy Concerning Illegal Use of Drugs on 22 January 1999.  Based on the Article 112a violation, processing for administrative separation is mandatory per the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual (MARCORSEPMAN).  When notified of administrative separation processing using the  procedure on 9 May 2004, the Applicant   rights to consult with a qualified counsel and request an administrative separation board.  He did submit a written statement acknowledging his guilt and the reasons why he chose to purposefully violate the Marine Corps’ zero tolerance policy against illegal drug use, knowing that it would result in his discharge from the Marine Corps.  On 15 December 2004, the Applicant’s Battalion Commander endorsed his administrative separation package.  On 4 May 2005, the Separation Authority, after considering the facts and circumstances surrounding the Applicant’s case, directed that he be separated from the Marine Corps with an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge due to Misconduct (Drug Abuse).  The Applicant was discharged as directed on 18 May 2005.

Issues 1 and 3:  (Decisional) ()  .  The Applicant contends command impropriety regarding alleged illegal personal conduct of fellow Marines during combat operations in Iraq.  Additionally, he contends the misconduct for which he was separated was an isolated incident in otherwise honorable service.  The NDRB is not an investigative body, and allegations of command legal or administrative impropriety should be made to the Naval Inspector General’s Office.  Allegations notwithstanding, the Board conducted a detailed review of the Applicant’s records to determine whether his discharge met the pertinent standards for propriety and equity.  Despite a service member’s prior record of service, certain serious offenses, even though isolated, warrant separation from the Naval Service in order to maintain good order and discipline; violation of Article 112a meets this standard.  He was fully aware there is a zero-tolerance policy for drug abuse, and 

he acknowledged the consequences.  While he may feel his mistrust of command leadership over alleged law of war violations and legal/administrative impropriety were the underlying cause of his misconduct, the record clearly reflects his misconduct was willful and demonstrated he was unfit for further service.  The evidence of record does not demonstrate the Applicant was not responsible for his conduct or he should not be held accountable for his actions.  An Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge is warranted when a Marine commits or omits an act that constitutes a significant departure from the conduct expected from a Marine.  The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of service, reflects the Applicant’s willful failure to meet the requirements of conduct expected of all Marines, regardless of his grade, length of service or combat experience, and falls short of what is required for an upgrade in the characterization of service.  Accordingly, the NDRB determined that the Applicant’s issue did not provide a basis for which relief could be granted.  Relief denied.

:  (Decisional) ()  .  The Applicant contends the misconduct for which he was separated was a result of self-medication in dealing with the effects of PTSD from his combat service in Iraq.  While he may believe PTSD was the underlying cause of his misconduct, the record clearly reflects his misconduct was willful and demonstrated he was unfit for further service.  During the Applicant’s fitness for duty and psychiatric follow-up examinations in April 2004, he stated that he had been experiencing problems with anxiety and depression since age 11, which he failed to divulge while being processed for Marine Corps enlistment in 1999.  He further stated that during 2002 he sought help from his family practitioner and received prescriptions for Xanax and Trazadone, medications that he continued to use throughout his deployment to Iraq (not divulged to his command nor documented within his service/medical records).  At the time of his administrative separation processing, the Applicant submitted a written statement to his chain of command admitting that he purposefully violated the USMC drug policy in order to be separated from the Marine Corps due to allegations of individual Marine misconduct and command impropriety regarding the alleged misconduct during combat operations in Iraq.  However, in his letter to the NDRB, he states that his drug use was due to self-medication in dealing with the effects of PTSD.  After detailed analysis and careful consideration of all the available evidence, the NDRB determined the Applicant’s issue to be without merit and did not provide a basis for which relief could be granted.  Relief denied.

Issue 4:  (Decisional) ()  .  The Applicant contends his 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 provided a personal statement, Congressional correspondence, transcripts, criminal background check, and character reference letters as evidence of post-service accomplishments.  Although his efforts to improve his life are noteworthy, completion of these items alone does not guarantee an upgrade from an unfavorable discharge as each discharge is reviewed by the Board on a case by case basis.  After careful consideration of all the available evidence and the facts and circumstances unique to the Applicant’s case, the NDRB determined that this 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 and  record entries, documentary evidence submitted by the Applicant, and the administrative separation process, the Board found   Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall  UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS 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 for additional information.

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), 701 South Courthouse Road, Suite 1001, Arlington, VA 22204-2490 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