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

 ex-PFC, USMC
Docket No. MD04-01062

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20040614.  The Applicant requested the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions.  The Applicant requested a documentary record review.  The Applicant did not list a representative on his DD Form 293.  Subsequent to the application, the Applicant obtained representation from the American Legion.

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

The Applicant submitted no issues for the Board’s consideration. 

Issues submitted by Applicant’s counsel/representative (AMERICAN LEGION):

1.  “Equity Issue:  Based on our review of evidentiary record and on behalf of this former member, we request that the Board consider provisions of SECNAVINST 5420.174C, enclosure (1), Chapter 9, as it pertains to post-service conduct, in assessing the merits of this application. 
_______________________________________________________________________

In accordance with 32 C.F.R., section 724.166 and SECNAVINST 5420.174C, enclosure (1), paragraph 1.16, The American Legion submits to the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB or Board) the above issue and following statement in supplement to this Applicant’s petition. 

Review of the service record reveals that this former member maintained satisfactory PRO/CON markings of 3.8/3.7 and earned the RSB.  On 010808, he was awarded NJP for VUCMJ, Arts. 86, 92, 107, 112a.  Following due process notifications, he was discharged Under Other Than Honorable Conditions due to misconduct as authorized by MARCORSEPMAN, Par. 6210.5.

Essentially, as noted on DD Form 293, this Applicant is requesting that his discharge be upgraded because he regrets the poor judgment that led to his misconduct and because of his post-service conduct.  He has submitted 9 pages of additional documentation attesting to his good post-service character, hard work and educational pursuits for consideration.

The American Legion’s express purpose in providing this statement and any other submittals or evidence filed is to assist this Applicant in the clarification and resolution of the impropriety or inequity raised.  To that end, we rest assured that the NDRB’s final decision will reflect sound equitable principles consistent in law, regulation, policy and discretion as promulgated by title 10 U.S.C., section 1553, and set forth in 32 C.F.R., part 724 and SECNAVINST 5420.174C, enclosure (1). 

This case is now respectfully submitted for deliberation and disposition.”

Documentation

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

Applicant’s Ltr to the Board (2 pages), dtd 05/20/04
Applicant’s DD Form 214 (Copies 6, 1, & 4)
Unofficial College Transcript from Grand Rapids Community College (3 Pages)
Character reference, dtd July 2, 2004
Character reference, undated 
Character reference, dtd July 30, 2004 
Character reference, dtd August 3, 2004 
Character reference, dtd July 28, 2004 
Character reference, dtd August 4, 2004

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:    None
	Inactive: USMCR (J)		001016 - 001022	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  001023		Date of Discharge:  011116

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    01  00  12
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  19			Years Contracted:  4 

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  56

Highest Rank:  LCpl			MOS:  0341, Mortar man

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Proficiency:  3.6 (5)			Conduct:  3.4 (5)

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  None

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  (12) = 20010719 - 20010730

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:

001014:	Applicant briefed upon and certified understanding of Marine Corps policy concerning illegal use of drugs.

010808:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86:  … absent himself from his appointed place of duty …
NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92:  … failed to obey an order not to go to Mexico without a special liberty chit.
NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 107:  did … (make) a false official statement …
NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 112a:  did … possess 3 vials of steroids, a controlled substance.
Awd red to E-2, forf of $584.00 per month for 2 months, and 60 days restriction.  Not appealed.

010921:	Applicant refuses Medical Officer Evaluation (MOE).  He acknowledged by refusing treatment “no Veterans Administration Hospital addiction treatment would be available in conjunction with (his) discharge.”

Undated:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse as evidenced by the Applicant’s “possession of steroids.”  

010928:	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 Applicant’s “possession of steroids.”  

011019:	Applicant advised of rights and having consulted 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.

011026:	SJA review determined the case sufficient in law and fact.

011026:	GCMCA [Commander, 1st Marine Division (Rein)] directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.

011026:	Applicant permanently barred from Camp Pendleton.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20011116 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:  In the Applicant’s case, the Board discovered no impropriety or inequity; thereby, considering his discharge proper and equitable. A service characterization of under other than honorable conditions is warranted when the service member’s conduct constitutes a significant departure from that expected of a United States Marine.  The record is devoid of any evidence the Applicant was not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions.  His service record is marred by award of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for unauthorized absence, failure to obey orders, making a false official statement and wrongful possession of controlled substances.  The Applicant’s summary of service clearly reflects his disobedience of the orders and directives regulating good order and discipline in the naval service, while demonstrating he was unsuitable for further service. An upgrade to general (under honorable conditions) would be inappropriate.  Relief denied.

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 the service.  However, the NDRB is authorized to consider outstanding post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge, to the extent that such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the Applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review.  Verifiable proof of any post-service accomplishments must be provided in order for the Applicant to claim post-service conduct and behavior as a reason to upgrade a less than honorable discharge.  Evidence of continuing educational pursuits, a positive employment record, documentation of community service, and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities, are examples of verifiable documents that should be provided to receive consideration for relief, based on post-service conduct.   At this time, the Applicant has not provided sufficient verifiable documentation of good character and conduct to mitigate his misconduct while on active duty.  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 additional documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments 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