, ex- LCpl, 

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20200806
Characterization of Service Received:   
Narrative Reason for Discharge:   MISCONDUCT (DRUG ABUSE)
Authority for Discharge:   MARCORSEPMAN 6210.5 [DRUGS] 

Applicant’s Request:	Characterization change to:	
Narrative Reason change to: REQUESTED BUT NOT SPECIFIED
Reentry Code change to: REQUESTED, BUT NOT SPECIFIED

Summary of Service

Prior Creditable Service:
Inactive:	 	             	Active:	 

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment:  20111115	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Extension
Date of Discharge:  20150924	Highest Rank/Rate:  Cpl
Length of Service:  03  Year(s)  10  Month(s)  10  Day(s)
Education Level:  12	AFQT:  54
Deployment/Operation: 

Evaluation Marks (# of occasions):  Performance/Proficiency: 4.3 (NFIR)   Behavior/Conduct: 4.3 (NFIR)  
Fitness Reports: 

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	Rifle  (3) JMUC NDSM GWOTSM HSM SSDR (2) OSR CoC CoA LoA 

Periods of UA:  NONE
Periods of CONF:  NONE
Other Time Lost per DD214:  NONE

SCM:    SPCM:    CIVIL ARREST:   CC:   

NJP:  1

- 20150403:	Article 80 (Attempts) 
	Article 107 (False official statements)
	Article 112a (Wrongful use, possession, manufacture or introduction of controlled substance)
	Article 134 (General article)
	Awarded: FOP RESRT    Suspended: NONE

Retention Warning Counseling:  1

- 20150403:	For Group Level NJP on 3 Apr 2015 for Violation of Articles 80, 107, 112a and 134.

NDRB Documentary Review Conducted (date):	20191031
NDRB Documentary Review Docket Number:	MD19-00832
NDRB Documentary Review Findings:		Proper as issued and that no change is warranted.

Types of Documents Submitted/reviewed

	DD 214:		Service/Medical Record:		Other Records:	
	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:	
 
Types of Witnesses Who Testified

	Expert:  			Character:    

	Witness E-1:			Witness C-1:	
	Witness E-2:			Witness C-2:

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A.  The Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16F), effective 26 November 2013 until present, Paragraph 6210.5, MISCONDUCT.

B.  Secretary of the Navy Manual 5420.1 of 29 September 2020 (Standards for the execution of the Naval Discharge Review Board).

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

Applicant’s Issues

1.	The Applicant contends that he suffers from PTSD and that this condition impacts his decision making and coping skills.
2.	The Applicant states that he was treated unfairly and that his discharge is unjust and too harsh.

Discussion

Date:  20230223		Location:  WASHINGTON D.C.	Representation:  

The Naval Discharge Review Board (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 the discharge and the discharge process to ensure the pertinent standards of equity and propriety were met.

As a result of the Applicant’s claim of a mental health condition, including PTSD, TBI, or Military Sexual Trauma, and in accordance with 10 U.S.C. § 1553, the NDRB included a member who is a physician, clinical psychologist, or psychiatrist.  
Additionally, and pursuant to § 1553, the NDRB reviewed the case with liberal consideration that a mental health condition, including PTSD, TBI, or Military Sexual Trauma potentially contributed to the circumstances resulting in the discharge of a lesser characterization.  A review of the record revealed that the Applicant did not deploy in support of a contingency operation, and so this case did not warrant an expedited review in accordance with § 1553.

The Applicant's record of service included:

  for  of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): 
Article 80 (Attempts) 
Article 112a (Wrongful use, possession, manufacture or introduction of controlled substance)
Article 134 (General article)

Issues 1-2: The Applicant contends that he suffers from PTSD and that this condition impacts his decision making and coping skills, and states that he was treated unfairly and that his discharge is unjust and too harsh.

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.  

Because the Applicant claimed mental health was a factor in their discharge, the Board reviewed the Applicant’s case in accordance with 10 U.S.C. § 1553, and pursuant to the Kurta Memo and other applicable regulations and guidance, including the Wilkie Memo.  Under the Kurta Memo, “[m]ental health conditions, including PTSD; sexual assault; and sexual harassment inherently affect one’s behaviors and choices causing veterans to think and behave differently than might otherwise be expected.”  Although, “[l]iberal consideration does not mandate an upgrade, [r]elief may be appropriate … for minor misconduct commonly associated with mental health conditions … and some significant misconduct sufficiently justified or outweighed by the facts and circumstances.”  Additionally, “substance seeking behavior and efforts to self-medicate symptoms of a mental health condition may warrant consideration.”  However, “[p]remeditated misconduct is not generally excused by mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; or by a sexual assault or sexual harassment experience.”  Therefore, “Review Boards will exercise caution in assessing the causal relationship between asserted conditions or experiences and premeditated misconduct.” See USD (P&R) Memo, “Clarifying Guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Requests by Veterans for Modification of their Discharge Due to Mental Health Conditions, Sexual Assault, or Sexual Harassment” 25 August 2017 (“Kurta Memo”).

The review of discharges pursuant to the Kurta Memo and its other applicable regulations/guidance generally involves four questions: a) Did the veteran have a condition or experience that may excuse or mitigate the discharge; b) Did that condition exist/experience occur during military service; c) Does that condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge; and d) Does that condition or experience outweigh the discharge?  

In this case, the Board found that: a) the Applicant did not have a condition/experience that mitigated the discharge; b) the condition did not exist during military service; c) the condition/experience did not mitigate the underlying basis/misconduct for the discharge; and d) the condition/experience did not outweigh the Applicant’s assigned Discharge Characterization.  

MEDICAL BOARD MEMBER OPINION 

1. | Does the available record reasonably support PTSD (or other boarded mental health condition) existed at the time of applicant’s military service? | No
2. | A.	Were these conditions present at time of misconduct? | No
| B.	Were these conditions mitigating for the misconduct? | No
3. | Were all required mental health and/or medical evaluations conducted in accordance with regulations, prior to the administrative separation of the applicant? | Yes
4. | Medical board member comments: | PTSD cited by Applicant referred to the impact it has had on his ability to cope with the charged misconduct and post-service transition. Applicant stated that the misconduct he was accused of committing was not related to PTSD. Change to his discharge characterization based on equity concerning treatment.

The Applicant contends that he suffers from PTSD and that this condition impacts his decision making and coping skills.  During testimony the Applicant raised the issues he experiences from PTSD in a capacity that addressed the duress he experienced from the misconduct he was charged with committing and his life post-service.  Thus the Board was challenged to associate PTSD with the misconduct that contributed to the Applicant’s administrative separation. The Applicant was asked specifically if the PTSD he states is associated with his military service had any impact on the issues of misconduct he was charged with and he expressed to the Board that it did not.  Stating that while experiences within the military, which included exposure to trauma while supporting a Humanitarian Assistance Operation, influence his mental health today, his PTSD manifested after the associated issues of misconduct and the stress inflicted with his disciplinary disposition and administrative separation.  Given the circumstances raised by the Applicant associated with PTSD the Board did not find grounds for applying mitigation to his misconduct.   

The Applicant contends he was wrongfully court-martialed and the choices provided to him by his command were unjust.  On 15 March 2015, the Applicant submitted his request for separation in lieu of trial by court-martial (SILT).  In the request for discharge, the Applicant noted that his counsel had fully explained the elements of the offenses for which he was charged and that he was guilty of those offenses.  He certified a complete understanding of the negative consequences of his actions and that characterization of service could be Under Other Than Honorable Conditions, which might deprive him of virtually all veterans benefits based upon his current enlistment.  The record shows the Applicant was not taken to court-martial but was administratively separated from the Marine Corps after requesting 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 offense(s) 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.

During testimony the Applicant stated that the handling of his misconduct caused him to be conflicted with addressing the charges that he faced. While the Applicant acknowledged that he was guilty of the adultery charge he did not violate Articles 80 and 112a.  The Applicant stated his interactions with a civilian woman occurred during a period of time when he had separated from his wife, but acknowledged that he was legally married at the time.  While he denies the use of marijuana and any attempt to interfere with the collection of evidence he stated that a Criminal Investigation Agent coerced him into an admission of wrongdoing by leading him to believe he would be allowed to remain in service and complete the final three months of his service contract.  He did not foresee that his misconduct would be referred to a court martial and that his agreement to a SILT allowed him to conclude the disposition of misconduct through administrative proceedings. 

A review of the record and Applicant testimony by the Board did not identify substantiating proof that the Applicant possessed and used marijuana. The Board was challenged to apply regularity as there is no record, or mention of validating use, of the Applicant taking a urinalysis or confirmation that the substance that was found in the Applicant’s hotel room was marijuana. The Criminal Investigative Division investigation cites a “green leafy substance” without mention of any testing that would prove it was marijuana. In addition, the investigation cites the presence of drug paraphernalia which only included pictures of a traditional pipe and not an item that was designed to ingest marijuana. The lack of substantiation on the part of the Applicant’s command of his drug use and possession supported the Applicant’s testimony.

In this case, the Applicant’s service was honest and faithful but significant negative aspects of the member’s conduct or performance of duty outweighed the positive aspects of the member’s service record.  In making its determination, the Board considered the totality of the Applicant’s service both his misconduct and also his overall service which included his enlistment Proficiency and Conduct marks of 4.3 and 4.3, participation and commendations for performance during a Humanitarian Service Operation; and promotion to Corporal. The Board also considered that his misconduct was a significant negative aspect within his military career but did not find that it rose to constitute a significant departure of military conduct in the context of his 46 month career.  Additionally, the Board took note that the Applicant had no other misconduct in his near completion of his four-year obligation.  Consequently, the Board found a change in characterization of service and narrative was appropriate; in essence, recharacterization to General, and narrative reason of separation, to Best Interest of the Service. 

Decision

After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s issues, summary of service,  record entries, and discharge process, the Board found .  Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall  GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS), the narrative reason for separation shall  SECRETARIAL AUTHORITY with a corresponding separation code of JFF1, and the reentry code shall  RE-4.  The Applicant is not eligible for further reviews by the NDRB.  The Applicant may petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records, 701 South Courthouse Road, Suite 1001, Arlington, VA 22204-2490 for further review using DD Form 149.  

ADDENDUM:  Information for the Applicant

Additional NDRB Reviews: After receiving a NDRB Document Review, an Applicant remains eligible for a Personal Appearance/Telephonic Hearing if the application is received by the NDRB within 15 years of the Applicant’s date of discharge.  The Applicant can provide documentation to support any claim(s) related to their discharge as well as evidence of post-service accomplishments.  Representation at a personal appearance hearing by an Attorney (or Advocate) 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.  However, if you have been discharged for more than 15 years, already had a personal appearance hearing, or otherwise exhausted your opportunity to be heard by the NDRB, the Applicant may petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR), 701 South Courthouse Road, Suite 1001, Arlington, VA 22204-2490, or http://www.secnav.navy.mil/mra/bcnr/Pages/default.aspx for further review.

Appeal Procedures on NDRB Decision: If you contest the NDRB’s decision in your case AND you already contested the NDRB’s previous decision at a Personal Appearance Hearing or otherwise exhausted your opportunity before the NDRB (or it has been more than 15 years since your discharge), the Applicant may petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR), 701 South Courthouse Road, Suite 1001, Arlington, VA 22204-2490, or http://www.secnav.navy.mil/mra/bcnr/Pages/default.aspx for further review.  The BCNR is the highest level of administrative review within the Department of the Navy/Marine Corps to correct errors or injustices to member’s records.

Complaint Procedures on Format: If you believe the decision in your case is ambiguous, 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 (JSRA), OUSD (P&R) PI-LP, The Pentagon, Washington, DC  20301-4000.  You should read Enclosure (5) of the DoD Instruction 1332.28 before submitting such a complaint.  This complaint procedure does not permit a challenge on the merits of the NDRB’s decision; the JSRA is designed solely to ensure that the NDRB decisional documents meet applicable requirements for clarity and responsiveness.  Therefore, if you are contesting the merits of the NDRB’s decision and already had a NDRB personal appearance hearing or otherwise exhausted your opportunities before the NDRB, the Applicant may appeal/petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR), 701 South Courthouse Road, Suite 1001, Arlington, VA 22204-2490, or http://www.secnav.navy.mil/mra/bcnr/Pages/default.aspx for further review.

Service [VA] Benefits: The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determines eligibility for post-service benefits, not the NDRB.  The NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of facilitating access to VA benefits.  Regulations limit the NDRB’s review solely to a determination of the propriety, equity, and clemency of a discharge.  Consequently, the Applicant should petition the VA, which determines eligibility for post-service benefits.  The VA conducts its own determination of eligibility based on service records and input from an Applicant upon their request.  Therefore, if the NDRB grants a change to a discharge, the NDRB will notify the Commander, Navy Personnel Command or Commandant of the Marine Corps that the DD 214 be corrected as appropriate; however, it is the Applicant’s responsibility to ensure these changes are incorporated into the record by the respective Service Headquarters.  Further, it is the Applicant’s sole responsibility to submit these changes to the VA for a determination of eligibility for VA Benefits.  Finally, the Applicant should refer to the Veterans Administration website (https://www.va.gov/) for information regarding VA benefits and healthcare.  Additionally, to find the nearest VA office to receive assistance with determining VA eligibility/access, the Applicant should refer to https://www.va.gov/find-locations.

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: The NDRB is authorized to change a NDRB Applicant’s Reenlistment Code if related to an accompanying change in discharge characterization or narrative, but this authority is strictly limited to those cases where an applicant’s narrative reason or characterization of discharge is changed and that change warrants revision of the previously issued reenlistment code.  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-Traumatic Stress Disorder and/or Traumatic Brain Injury: For all claims involving PTSD and/or TBI, the NDRB’s review implemented the guidance set forth in the SECDEF Memorandum of 3 September 2014 (Supplemental guidance to Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Discharge Upgrade Requests by Veterans Claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder).  In accordance with U.S. Code, Title X, Section 1553 (d)(1) & (d)(2), the NDRB included a member who is a physician, clinical psychologist, or psychiatrist and accorded the case sufficient priority to achieve an expedited resolution and a final decision.  If the Applicant’s claim of PTSD/TBI was based in whole or in part on sexual trauma, intimate partner violence, or spousal abuse, the NDRB obtained a review by a psychiatrist, psychologist, or social worker with training on mental health issues associated with PTSD/TBI or other trauma.  

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 that 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.

Military Sexual Trauma: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) uses the term "military sexual trauma" (MST) to refer to experiences of sexual assault or repeated, threatening sexual harassment experienced while on federal active duty, active duty for training, or inactive duty training.  To get confidential one-on-one help please contact the MST Coordinator at your nearest VA Medical Center or Call Safe Helpline at 1-877-995-5247 or visit www.mentalhealth.va.gov/msthome.asp.

Reporting Military Sexual Trauma: To report a military sexual trauma, you can make an anonymous report to the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) by Text or Online.  The NCIS Tip Line provides service members, veterans and civilians a safe, discreet and ANONYMOUS option to report criminal and force protection threats within the USN and USMC without concerns of retaliation.  To report a crime by Text: Text 274637 (CRIMES); Type “NCIS” at the top of the message; and include as much detail as possible to ensure your tip can effectively be investigated.  To send your ANONYMOUS Tip via the online, go to https://www.tipsubmit.com/webtipsNAV.aspx?AgencyID=840.

Suicide Prevention: Veterans in emotional crisis or their loved ones can call the free and confidential Veterans Crisis Line at 1-800-273-8255 (then press 1); or chat online at http://www.veteranscrisisline.net, or send a text message to 838255 to connect with a caring, qualified Veteran Affairs Responder who can deal with any immediate crisis.