ex-, USMC

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received:  20120927
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)	19900215 - 19900916  	Active:		19900917 - 19940826  
					19940827 - 19990801  
					19990802 - 20030318  
					20030319 - 20070711  

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment:  20070712	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Months
Date of Discharge:  20090716	Highest Rank:  
Length of Service:    Year(s)    Month(s)  05  Day(s)
Education Level:  	AFQT:  38
MOS:  0699 / 8411 / 2531
Fitness Reports:  

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	Rifle  Pistol  CoC CGMUC    (2) JMUA JSAM (3) LoA (2)  (5) MCRR MM (4) NASADSM NDSM (2) NMCAM (2) MUC NUC (2) PUC SSDR (3)

Time Lost (per DD 214):  20080329 - 20080331, 3 days; 20090401 - 20090405, 5 days

SPCM:  

- 20081024	Article  (Wrongful use, possession, etc. of controlled substances)
	Verdict: Not Guilty

NJP:  		SCM:  		CC:  	Retention Warning Counseling:  

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

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

	  “CONTINUOUS HONORABLE ACTIVE SERVICE FROM 900917 UNTIL 070711”

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:	

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

Applicant’s Issues

1.	The Applicant contends Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) was the underlying cause of his misconduct.
2.	The Applicant contends he should have been given a medical discharge for PTSD.

Decision

Date:  20130529		Location: Washington D.C.	 Representation: 

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

Discussion

As a result of the Applicant’s claim of PTSD, 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 Applicant’s service record documents completion of two deployments to Iraq from 20 March 2003 to 15 August 2003 and again from 01 June 2004 to 19 August 2004, conducting operations in support of Operation IRAQI FREEDOM.

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 did complete 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.  On 11 January 2008, the Applicant was diagnosed with PTSD related to his combat service in Iraq.  The Applicant’s record of service included   for  of the UCMJ: Article 112a (Wrongful use, possession, etc. of a controlled substance).  The Applicant was tried on 24 October 2008 and found not guilty.  On 27 March 2009, the Applicant was detained and charged with violation of Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation) and Article 112a (Wrongful use, possession, etc. of a controlled substance).  On 30 March 2009, the Applicant submitted a request for separation in lieu of trial by court-martial (SILT).  Per regulations, to attain approval for a SILT request, servicemembers must have been afforded the opportunity to consult with a qualified counsel and submit a written statement.  They must also fully understand the elements of the offenses for which they were charged, and they must admit their guilt.  They further certify a complete understanding of the negative consequences of their actions and that characterization of service could be Under Other Than Honorable Conditions, which might deprive them of virtually all veterans benefits based upon their current enlistment.  The Marine Corps accepted his request and discharged him Under Other Than Honorable Conditions for Separation In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial.

:  (Decisional) ()  .  The Applicant contends PTSD was the underlying cause of his misconduct.  The Applicant received Honorable discharges for his first four enlistments.  Each period of enlistment is an independent obligation and characterization is determined for that specific period of time.  During his fifth enlistment, his command referred charges to a Special Court-Martial for violation of UCMJ Articles 92 and 112a.  In determining discharge characterization of service, the Applicant’s conduct forms the primary basis for consideration.  The Applicant admitted that he was abusing drugs during his current enlistment.  After advice from counsel, the Applicant submitted a request for an administrative discharge in lieu of appearing before a Special Court-Martial, where he could have received confinement, a fine, and a punitive (i.e., Bad Conduct) discharge.  A review of the Applicant’s records reveals that he received multiple instances of treatment for PTSD and substance abuse after he was diagnosed with PTSD in 2008, including in-patient treatment at Loma Linda University Medical Center and Aurora Behavioral Health Care, and was being treated at the time of his misconduct.  The NDRB considered all of the circumstances unique to the Applicant’s case and determined his acts of misconduct were willful and demonstrated he was unfit for further military service.  The NDRB determined his PTSD, which was being treated, did not mitigate or excuse his misconduct.  Relief denied.

:  (Decisional) ()  .  The Applicant contends he should have been given a medical discharge for PTSD.  At the time of his misconduct, the Applicant was being processed for a medical discharge through the Physical Evaluation Board process.  Department of Defense regulations provide that disciplinary separations supersede disability separations.  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 Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 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 Board for Correction of Naval Records can grant this type of narrative reason change.  A complete review of the records shows that his discharge proceedings were proper and that he received full due process and all applicable rights.  Relief denied.

Summary:  After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service,  record entries, and 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 for additional information.

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.

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