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

ex-PVT, USMC
Docket No. MD04-00889

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20040505.  The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable.  The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review.  The Applicant did not list any representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20041022.  After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the Applicant’s service was discovered by the NDRB.  The Board’s vote was unanimous that the character of the discharge shall not change.  The discharge shall remain: UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority: MARCORSEPMAN 6210.5.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

“1.  My discharge is improper because it was an isolated incident that I have not had a problem with in neither the past, present, or future.  

  I would also like to rejoin the military if possible.” 

Documentation

In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:

Letter from T_B_ (proof of employment), dtd April 1, 2004
Virginia State Police Criminal Records Check, dtd Apr 06, 2004

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):

	Active:   USMC		None
	Inactive: USMCR(J)		None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  991113		Date of Discharge:  020415

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    02  04  15
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  4 

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  55

Highest Rank:  PFC

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Proficiency:  3.9 (4)			Conduct:  3.6 (4)

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  RSB

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  21

Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance):

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority:  MARCORSEPMAN 6210.5.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

991109:	Initial enlistment contract documents admission of pre-service marijuana experimentation.  Enlistment waiver granted. Applicant briefed upon and certified understanding of Marine Corps policy concerning illegal use of drugs.

010626:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (1 specs):
Specification 1:  010529, 0700 to 010619, SNM was UA/AWOL from his appointed place of duty.  
Awarded:  Reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $521.00 per month for 2 months, and 30 days CCU to run concurrently.  Restriction and extra duties for 00 days.  Not appealed.

010702:	NAVDRUGLAB Jacksonville, FL msg 022032Z Jul 01 reported Applicant’s urine sample, received 26 Jun 01, tested positive for THC.

010813:	Alcohol Treatment Facility Naval Hospital Camp Lejeune, NC provides Applicant with Statement of Understanding of Treatment for Substance Abuse at a VA Medical Center for assistance after his discharge.

010822:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse as evidenced by NavDrugLab msg 022032Z Jul 01.

010823:	Counseled concerning illegal drug involvement, THC usage identified through urinalysis confirmed by Nav Drug Lab JAXFL, msg 022032Z Jul 01.    Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.

010830:	Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights except the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation.

011113:	Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.  The factual basis for this recommendation was the respondent’s (Applicant) wrongful use of THC and cocaine, which was confirmed by NavDrugLab message 022032Z Jul 01.

020122:	Alcohol Treatment Facility Naval Hospital Camp Lejeune, NC conducts evaluation of Applicant.  Applicant refuses treatment for alcohol abuse.  Applicant’s signature acknowledges the following statement:  “ I have been evaluated and counseled this date regarding my substance abuse.  The provisions of MCO 1900.16C, MCO P1000.10, and OPNAVINST 5350.4 have been explained to me as appropriate concerning my failure to complete the treatment program.  I have been counseled in regards to treatment at a Veteran’s Administration Hospital (VAH) for my substance abuse problem.

020315:	SJA review determined the case sufficient in law and fact.

020402:	GCMCA, CG, 2d Marine Division, directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20020415 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to drug abuse (A).  The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (B).  After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (C and D).

Issue 1.  The Applicant states that “my discharge is improper because it was an isolated incident”.  There is credible evidence in the record that the Applicant used illegal drugs.  Mandatory processing for separation is required for Marines who abuse illegal drugs.  Separation under these conditions generally results in characterization of service under other than honorable conditions.    The evidence of record does not demonstrate that the Applicant was not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions.  Relief denied.

When the service of a member of the U.S. Marine Corps has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service as honorable.  An Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge is warranted when significant negative aspects of a member's conduct or performance of duty outweigh the positive aspects of the member's military record.  The Applicant’s service was marred by a nonjudicial punishment proceeding for a violation of Articles 86 of the UCMJ, wherein the Applicant was UA for 29 days.  Further, the Applicant tested positive on a urinalysis for THC.  The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflects his willful failure to meet the requirements of his contract with the U.S. Marine Corps and falls far short of that required for an upgrade of his characterization of service.  Relief is not warranted.

Issue 2.  The Applicant “would like to rejoin the military service if possible”.  Concerning a change in reenlistment code, the NDRB has no authority to change reenlistment codes or make recommendations to permit reentry into the naval service or any other of the Armed Forces.  The NDRB has no jurisdiction over reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Navy or Marine Corps.  Reenlistment policy of the naval service is promulgated by the Recruiting Command, 5722 Integrity Drive, Bldg 784, Millington, TN 38054 [or] Commandant, United States Marine Corps, Code MMEA, 3280 Russell Road, Quantico, VA 22134.  Neither a less than fully honorable discharge nor an unfavorable "RE" code is, in itself, a bar to reenlistment.  A request for a waiver is normally done only during the processing of a formal application for enlistment through a recruiter.  

The following is provided for the edification of the Applicant.  Normally, to permit relief, a procedural impropriety or inequity must have occurred during the discharge process for the period of enlistment in question.  The Board discovered no impropriety after a review of Applicant’s case.  There is no law or regulation, which provides that an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded, based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving naval service.  The NDRB is authorized, however, to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge 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.  Examples of documentation that should be provided to the Board include proof of educational pursuits, verifiable employment records, documentation of community service, credible evidence of a substance free lifestyle and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities.  As of this time, the Applicant has not provided sufficient documentation for the Board to consider.  Relief denied.

The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of discharge.  The Applicant can provide documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments or any other evidence related to his discharge at that time.  Representation at a personal appearance hearing is recommended but not required.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Paragraph 6210, MISCONDUCT, of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16F), effective 01 September  2001 until Present. 

B.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 2, AUTHORITY/POLICY FOR DEPARTMENTAL DISCHARGE REVIEW.  

C.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 9, paragraph 9.2, PROPRIETY OF THE DISCHARGE.

D.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 9, paragraph 9.3, EQUITY OF THE DISCHARGE.

PART IV - INFORMATION FOR THE APPLICANT

If you believe that 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 Directive 1332.28, you may submit a complaint in accordance with Enclosure (5) of that Directive.  You should read Enclosure (5) of the Directive 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 Directive 1332.28 and other Decisional Documents by going online at “afls14.jag.af.mil”.  

The names, and votes of the members of the Board are recorded on the original of this document and may be obtained from the service records by writing to:

		Naval Council of Personnel Boards
		Attn:  Naval Discharge Review Board
		720 Kennon Street SE Rm 309
		Washington Navy Yard DC  20374-5023