ex-, USMC

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received:  20130925
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)	20031017 - 20040621  	Active:	

Pre-Service Drug Waiver:  

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment:  20040622	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Months
Date of Discharge:  20070703	Highest Rank:  
Length of Service:    Years    Months  12  Days
Education Level:  	AFQT:  71
MOS:  3531
Proficiency/Conduct Marks (# of occasions):   / 	Fitness Reports:  

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

Periods of UA/CONF:  

NJP:  

- 20070608:	Article  (Wrongful use, possession, etc. of controlled substances, to wit: MDMA)
	Article 121 (Larceny and wrongful appropriation, did steal a trailer from Budget Rent-A-Car)
	Awarded:     Suspended:   

SCM:  	SPCM:  	CC:  

Retention Warning Counseling:  

- 20050815:	For attempting to cut your wrist with the dull edge of a razor blade.  Subsequently, you had to be physically restrained by a fellow Marine for demonstrating possible suicidal gestures; by giving him your parents and girlfriend’s number, then walking through the portside hatch of the ship and making a gesture that your intentions were to jump off the side of the ship.  Upon being monitored/evaluated by competent medical authority, it was determined that you were fit for full duty.

- 20060406:	For unauthorized absence by failing to report to his appointed place of duty.  Your conduct and behavior is detrimental to good order and discipline within the Armed Forces.

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

The NDRB did note administrative errors on the original DD Form 214:

	 Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, should read:  “RIFLE EXPERT BADGE (2); IRAQ CAMPAIGN MEDAL; SEA SERVICE DEPLOYMENT RIBBON; GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM SERVICE MEDAL; NATIONAL DEFENSE SERVICE MEDAL; CERTIFICATE OF APPRECIATION; LETTER OF APPRECIATION”
	  “”

The NDRB will recommend to the Commandant of the Marine Corps, MMSB-13, 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:	

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.	The Applicant contends he was punished twice by being denied Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical care for service-connected Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and other service-connected medical conditions.
2.	The Applicant seeks an upgrade to qualify for the G.I. Bill.
3.	The Applicant contends his discharge was excessively harsh considering it was based on an isolated incident in 36 months of service, which included 10 months of foreign service, a Good Conduct Medal, and an Iraq Campaign Medal.
4.	The Applicant contends other servicemembers failed the same drug screening urinalysis but were not discharged.  
5.	The Applicant contends his post-service conduct warrants consideration for an upgrade.
6.	The Applicant contends a relationship issue triggered his service-connected PTSD, and he impulsively self-medicated with Ecstasy, which is a common occurrence and thus makes it understandable, though regrettable.

Decision

Date:  20140403		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.  A review of the Applicant’s service record revealed that he deployed in support of Operation IRAQI FREEDOM from August 2005 to February 2006.

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.  The Applicant’s record of service included  6105 counseling warnings and   for  of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article  (Wrongful use, possession, etc., of controlled substances, MDMA) and Article  (Larceny and wrongful appropriation).  The Applicant  a pre-service drug waiver for using marijuana  prior to entering the Marine Corps,  acknowledged  complete understanding of the Marine Corps Policy Concerning Illegal Use of Drugs on 16 October 2003.  Based on the Article 112a violation, processing for administrative separation is mandatory.  The NDRB did not have the Applicant’s administrative separation package to determine whether or not the Applicant waived  rights to consult with a qualified counsel and submit a written statement.  The separation code, HKK1, on the Applicant’s DD Form 214 indicates he waived his right to an administrative board.

:  (Nondecisional)  The Applicant contends he was punished twice by being denied VA medical care for service-connected PTSD and other service-connected medical conditions.  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.

:  (Nondecisional)  The Applicant seeks an upgrade to qualify for the G.I. Bill.  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.

:  (Decisional) ()  .  The Applicant contends his discharge was excessively harsh considering it was based on an isolated incident in 36 months of service, which included 10 months of foreign service, a Good Conduct Medal, and an Iraq Campaign Medal.  Certain serious offenses, even though isolated, warrant separation from the service to maintain proper order and discipline.  Violation of Article 112a is one such offense requiring mandatory processing for administrative separation regardless of grade, performance, deployments, medals, or time in service.  This usually results in 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.  The command did not pursue a punitive discharge but opted instead for the more lenient administrative discharge.  Also, the Applicant did not warrant a Good Conduct Medal, which requires three years of misconduct-free service.  The Applicant was found guilty at NJP on 8 June 2007, which was two weeks before he had served for three years.  Relief denied.

4:  (Decisional) ()  .  The Applicant contends other servicemembers failed the same drug screening urinalysis but were not discharged.  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 standards of discipline of the Naval Service.  Based upon available records, nothing indicates that the Applicant’s discharge was in any way inconsistent with the standards of discipline in the United States Marine Corps.  A preponderance of the evidence reviewed supports the conclusion that separation from the Marine Corps was appropriate and that an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge was warranted.  Relief denied.

Issue 5:  (Decisional) (Equity)  RELIEF NOT WARRANTED.  The Applicant contends his post-service conduct warrants consideration for an upgrade.  The NDRB considers 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.  The Applicant provided a personal statement and an Associate of Science degree.  The Applicant could have provided documentation as detailed in the Post-Service Conduct paragraph in the Addendum, however, 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 to determine if post-service conduct establishes that the in-service misconduct was an aberration.  The Board determined the characterization of service received was appropriate considering the length of service and UCMJ violations.  Relief denied.

6:  (Decisional) ()  .  The Applicant contends a relationship issue triggered his service-connected PTSD, and he impulsively self-medicated with Ecstasy, which is a common occurrence and thus makes it understandable, though regrettable.  A review of the Applicant’s medical records revealed the Applicant was diagnosed with Major Depressive Disorder and PTSD and placed on limited duty on 03 August 2006.  The Applicant was subsequently evaluated and diagnosed with Major Depressive Disorder and Adjustment Disorder with Depression and returned to full duty on 28 March 2007.  Though the Applicant may feel that PTSD was the underlying cause of his misconduct, the record reflects willful misconduct that demonstrated he was unfit for further service.  The evidence of record did not show that the Applicant was either not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions.  The Applicant’s wrongful use of Ecstasy and stealing a trailer were conscious decisions to violate the tenets of honorable and faithful service.  The NDRB determined PTSD did not mitigate the Applicant’s misconduct.  While his self-medication was regrettable, it certainly was not understandable.  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.

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