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

ex-LCpl, USMC
Docket No. MD01-00289

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 010111, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable.  The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review.  The applicant listed the American Legion as the representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 010608.  After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, NDRB discerned no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the applicant’s service.  The Board’s vote was unanimous that the character of the discharge shall not change.  The discharge shall remain: GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/PERSONALITY DISORDER, authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6203.3

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

1.  (Equity Issue)  This former member opines that his discharge should be upgraded because despite medical problems, depression and alcohol dependency his overall service record clearly supports a fully honorable separation. 

2.  (Equity Issue)  This former member further requests that the Board include provisions of SECNAVINST 5420.174C., enclosure (1), Chapter 9, as it pertains to post-service conduct, in assessing the merits of his application.

Documentation

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

Copy of DD Form 214
Letter from Colonel date August 4, 1999
Letter from Commanding Officer dated August 2, 1999
Letter from Commander dated August 17, 2000

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   None
	Inactive: USMCR(J)		960628 - 960909	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  960910		Date of Discharge:  991201

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    03  02  22
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  19			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  68

Highest Rank:  LCpl

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Proficiency:  0.00 (0)		Conduct:  0.0(0)

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  Letter of Appreciation

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  7

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/PERSONALITY DISORDER, authority:  MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6203.3.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

960626:	Applicant briefed upon and certified understanding of Marine Corps policy concerning illegal use of drugs.

981118:	Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct.  [Failure to be present at the Marine Corps Marathon formation of 24 October 1998, even after being directed by your SNCOIC to be at the formation.]  Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.

991118:	Applicant informed eligible but not recommended for promotion to Lance Corporal for the month of December 1998 because of a recent page 11 entry.

990209:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92:
Specification: Wrongfully wearing an earring through his pierced tongue on 30Jan99.
Awarded restriction and extra duties for 45 days, reduction to PFC.  Restriction suspended for 6 months.  Not appealed.

990315:	Applicant informed eligible but not recommended for promotion to Lance Corporal due to a suspension of NJP sentence IAW MCO P1400.32B.

990517:	Medical evaluation by a military psychiatrist concluded that the applicant’s personality disorder predated his enlistment, was so severe that his ability to function effectively in the military environment was significantly impaired, that this condition is unresponsive to treatment available in the Marine Corps, and that he is at chronic risk for repeated suicidal/homicidal behavior.  Further, that he should be expeditiously processed for separation and not allowed to handle weapons or ammunition due to his suicidal/homicidal potential.
	AXIS I: Adjustment disorder with disturbances of emotions and conduct
Axis II: Borderline personality disorder with antisocial traits

990611:	Vacate restriction awarded at CO's NJP of 9Feb99.

990611:	Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct.  [Alcohol-related incident, specifically, civilian conviction for DUI, in Fairfax County, Virginia and subsequent incarceration from 3 June 1999 to 10 June 1999 in Fairfax County, Virginia.]  Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.

990714:	NJP imposed and suspended on 9Feb99 for a period of 6 months and vacated on 11Jun99 was ordered remitted.

990720:	Applicant informed eligible but not recommended for promotion to Lance Corporal due to conviction of a DUI.

990721:	Applicant referred to Consolidated Substance Abuse Counseling Center for an alcohol related incident.  Applicant medically diagnosed with alcohol dependence.

990910:	Applicant successfully completed Level III treatment.

990910:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under honorable conditions (general) for the convenience of the government due to a personality disorder, based upon a diagnosed personality disorder as evidenced by psychiatric evaluation.

990913:	Applicant advised of his 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.

990917:	Commanding officer recommended Honorable discharge due to a personality disorder, based upon a diagnosed personality disorder as evidenced by psychological evaluation.  The factual basis for this recommendation was your diagnosed personality disorder.  

990929:	SJA review determined the case sufficient in law and fact and recommended under honorable conditions (general) discharge.

991004:	GCMCA [Commanding General, Marine Corps Combat Development Command, Quantico, VA] directed the applicant's discharge under honorable conditions (general) for convenience of the government due to a personality disorder.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 991201 general (under honorable conditions) for convenience of the government due to a personality disorder (A and B).  The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (C).  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 (D and E).

In the applicant’s issue 1, the Board disagrees with his contention that, “despite medical problems, depression, and alcohol dependency his overall service record clearly supports a fully honorable separation”. When a Marine’s service has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service as Honorable.  Under honorable conditions (general) 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 award of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for an offense triable by court-martial on one occasion and adverse counseling entries on six other occasions, including a counseling for failing to be at appointed place of duty, which could have been punished under Article 86.  Additionally, the applicant was convicted and incarcerated in hands of civil authorities for seven days for an offense punishable under the UCMJ.  The applicant’s misconduct included violations of Article 92, failure to obey a lawful order by wearing an earring in his pierced tongue, and a civil conviction of DUI, an offense punishable under Article 111.  The applicant could also have been charged with violation of Article 86, unauthorized absence, for the seven days he was incarcerated by civil authorities.  The applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflects his willful disobedience of the orders and directives which regulate good order and discipline in naval service, and falls short of that required for an honorable characterization of service.  An upgrade to honorable would be inappropriate.  Relief on this basis is therefore denied.

In considering the applicant’s second issue, equity based on post-service conduct, the following is provided for the applicant’s edification.  The NDRB is authorized to consider outstanding post-service conduct, 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.  However, there is no law or regulation that provides that an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time, or good conduct in the civilian life subsequent to leaving the service.  Normally, to permit relief, an error or injustice must be found to have existed during the period of enlistment in question.  No such error or injustice is evident in the applicant’s service record.  

In determining whether a case merits a change based on post-service conduct, the NDRB considers the length of time since discharge, the applicant's record of community service, employment, conduct, educational achievements, and family relationships. 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.  The applicant provided a copy of his DD-214, a letter from COL T_ and two letters from his father.  The applicant's efforts need to be more encompassing than those provided.  The applicant should have produced evidence of continuing educational pursuits, a verifiable employment record, documentation of community service, certification of non-involvement with civil authorities and proof of his being sober in order for consideration for clemency based on post-service conduct.  NDRB experience has shown that applicants with less than five years sobriety usually have not had sufficient opportunity to demonstrate continuing, positive contributions to society. The possibility of favorable action in the applicant’s case will increase with the amount of time he maintains an alcohol and drug free lifestyle.  At this time the applicant has not provided sufficient documentation of good character and conduct.  Therefore no relief will be granted.  

The applicant is reminded that he remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing provided that an application is received within 15 years from the date of discharge.  Representation at a personal hearing is not mandatory, but is strongly recommended.  This representation need not be a lawyer, but may be any person of stature and good standing in the community including the various veterans’ organization.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Paragraph 6203, CONVENIENCE OF THE GOVERNMENT, of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16E), effective 18 Aug 95 until Present.

B.  Table 6-1, Guide for Characterization of Service, of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16E), effective 18 Aug 95 until Present.

C.  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.  

D.  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.

E.  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