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

 ex-PFC, USMC
Docket No. MD01-00352

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 010129, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable.  The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review.  The applicant did not designate a representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 010822.  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:  UNCHARACTERIZED/ FRAUDULENT ENTRY INTO MILITARY SERVICE, authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6204.3.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

1.  To whom it may concern,

     At the beginning of 1999, I joined the United States Marine Corps for what I thought was going to be a very long time.  However, my contract was terminated early and involuntarily.  I was given an involuntary separation due to fraudulent entry.  Reason being I had a mental breakdown during boot camp.  I have never had anything remotely like this happen to me before.  Since this has happened, I had to remain medicated for almost a year and a half.  The Marine Corps says that I had a preexisting condition.  I say this is untrue and there is nothing that backs their claim.  As for uncharacterized service, I feel that while I was on active duty I was an ideal recruit.  I have a brother that was in the Corps while this all happened.  He had his 1stSGT (1stSGT M_ of Kilo Co. 3rd Battalion 5th Marines, 1st Marine Division) call the 1stSGT (of Charlie Co., 1st Battalion Parris Island) that was in recruit training and he was told that I was an ideal recruit.  I feel that my discharge should be upgraded to Honorable Discharge to reflect this.     I feel that I should be able to obtain this because of the fact that I am an ideal citizen and that the Corps has no proof (none exists) of a fraudulent entry.  I feel that the discharge that I have now is seriously discrediting me in the form of job discrimination.  I sincerely wish to upgrade my discharge due to this.  Respectfully submitted (Applicant).

Documentation

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

Copy of DD Form 214

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   None
	Inactive: USMCR(J)		990129 - 990202	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  990203		Date of Discharge:  990506

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:  00  03  04
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  22			Years Contracted:  4 

Education Level:  13			AFQT:  72

Highest Rank:  PFC

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Proficiency:  NMF			Conduct:  NMF

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  None

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

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

UNCHARACTERIZED/FRAUDULENT ENTRY INTO MILITARY SERVICE, authority:  MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6204.3.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

990410:	Branch Medical Clinic, Parris Island, Mental Health Unit:  
Assessment:  Bipolar Disorder, NOS.  Pt has history of hospitalization for eval of Bipolar Disorder.  Pt is not appropriate for military services.
Recommendation:  Mental health treatment after discharge

990410:	Admitted to Dwight David Eisenhower Army Medical Center, Ft Gordon:  Admitted to Center after he displayed bizarre behavior during basic training.  After admission, he continued to display the bizarre behavior and disturbed thought processes characteristic of someone with the diagnosis of manic-depressive (Bipolar) disorder.  While he has improved significantly with the help of medication, his condition is likely to recur.  His condition makes him unfit for retention.  Strongly recommend expeditious discharge from the Marine Corps.
	
AXIS I:    1) Bipolar Disorder, most recent episode manic.
		     2) Alcohol dependence, in full sustained remission.
	AXIS II:   Deferred.
	AXIS III:  None.

	Follow-up appointment will be arranged by patient and his family in Ohio with a provider they choose.

990429:	Released from Medical Center.

990506:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation entry level separation by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to a fraudulent entry into the U.S. Marine Corps for pre-service undisclosed history of Bipolar Disorder.

990506:	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.

990506:	Commanding officer recommended entry level separation by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to a fraudulent entry into the U.S. Marine Corps.  The factual basis for this recommendation was due to hospitalized for Bipolar Disorder - unsuitable for further service.   

990506:	GCMCA [CG, MCRD/Eastern Recruiting Region] directed the applicant's discharge with an uncharacterized (entry level) by reason defective enlistment and induction due to a fraudulent entry into the U.S. Marine Corps.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 990506 with an uncharacterized (entry level) by reason defective enlistment and induction due to a fraudulent entry (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).

The applicant states the Marine Corps has no proof to support that the applicant had a prior service history of mental breakdowns.  However, a review of the official records note statements to the contrary.  In fact, the applicant himself stated on 6 May 1999 that he was “slightly obsessive compulsive.  I never told any of this to my recruiter.”  The applicant also states he was an ideal recruit.  His recruit evaluation card notes his conduct was Below Average for the period between Training Day 42 and prior to his mental breakdown on 10 April 1999, in which he was diagnosed with a Bipolar Disorder.   The applicant spent 18 days in the mental health unit at the Ft. Gordon Army Medical Center.  Medical documents reviewed during the immediate period surrounding his mental breakdown of 10 April 1999 stated he had a prior history of Bipolar Disorder.  The applicant offers no credible evidence to rebut this presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs.  Relief denied.

The Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment opportunities.  The Board’s charter limits its review to a determination on the propriety and equity of the discharge.  In the applicant’s case the Board could discern no impropriety or inequity and therefore considered the applicant’s discharge was proper and equitable.  Normally, to permit relief, an error or injustice must have existed during the period of enlistment in question.  No such error or injustice occurred during the applicant’s enlistment.  Additionally, 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.   The applicant states he is an ideal citizen.  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, an employment record, documentation of community service, certification of non-involvement with civil authorities and proof of his not using drugs, are examples of verifiable documents that should have been provided to receive consideration for relief, based on post-service conduct.  The applicant did not provide sufficient documentation to warrant an upgrade to his discharge.  He is reminded that he remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of his discharge.  The applicant can provide additional documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments at that time.  Legal representation at a personal appearance hearing is highly recommended but not required.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  The Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual,(MCO P1900.16E), effective 18 Aug 9 until present, paragraph 6204, DEFECTIVE ENLISTMENT AND INDUCTION.

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 “afls10.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