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

 ex-LCpl, USMC
Docket No. MD01-00903

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 010703, 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 list any representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 020118.  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)/MISCONDUCT, authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6210.3.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

1.  I was discharged for "misconduct" while I undergoing psychiatric treatment for extreme depression, after I attempted suicide.  While being treated for depression, I was late to formation and got reduced in grade. The Marine Corps said they were giving the General discharge in order to expedite my separation because they no longer considered me compatible with continued military service.  They claimed that the General discharge would spare me further problems. I believe that I should have been discharged Honorably, under medical circumstances.  I accepted the General discharged based upon the understanding that I could later file for this upgrade to "Honorable".

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)		930108 - 931024	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  931025		Date of Discharge:  980710

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    04  08  16
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  5

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  79

Highest Rank:  Cpl

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Proficiency:  4.4 (11)			Conduct:  4.3 (11)

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NDSM, GCM

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT, authority:  MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6210.3.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

941221:	Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct.  [Failure or inability to cope with stressful situations by scratching myself with a hair pin].  Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.

960521:	Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct.  [Unauthorized absence from Avionics work center 610 from 0645, 3May96 to 1005, 3May96].  Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.

960806:	Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct.  [Substandard child neglect].  Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.

980109:	Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct.  [Failed to report to the Rifle Range at the prescribed time on 1Dec97].  Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.

980203:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86:
Specification: Unauthorized absence from appointed place of duty at 0731, 9Jan98, to wit: rifle range.
Awarded forfeiture of $200.00 per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duties for 45 days, reduction to LCpl.  Forfeiture, restriction, extra duty and reduction suspended for 6 months.  Not appealed.

980522:	Psychiatric evaluation: Diagnosis: Axis I: Occupational problems.  Axis II: Personality disorder NOS with borderline and histrionic features.

980612:	All charges against the applicant were dropped and applicant was not subjected to NJP.

980625:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under honorable conditions (general) by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and convenience of the government due to a personality disorder.

980625:	Applicant advised of her rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights.

980625:	Commanding officer recommended discharge under honorable conditions (general) by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.  The factual basis for this recommendation was your discreditable involvement with military authorities, as evidenced by one nonjudicial punishment and three counseling entries on page 11 of your service record.  Additionally, you have been diagnosed with a personality disorder, as evidenced by your psychological evaluation of 21 May 1998 and the subsequent recommendation letter of 22 May 1998.  This personality disorder, coupled with your inability to function effectively in the military environment, renders you unfit for further military service.  

980806:	SJA review determined the case sufficient in law and fact.

980806:	GCMCA [Commanding General, 2d Marine Aircraft Wing] directed the applicant's discharge general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 980710 general (under honorable conditions) for misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct (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).

Issue 1.   The Board found that the applicant was clearly notified that her processing for administrative separation was for misconduct and for a personality disorder.  The separation authority directed that the primary reason for discharge would be for misconduct.  This was proper and equitable.  Less than honorable conditions 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 offenses triable by court-martial on one occasion and adverse counseling entries on other occasions.  The applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of her service, reflects her 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.  It must be noted that most Marines serve honorably and well and therefore earn honorable discharges.   In fairness to those Marines, commanders and separation authorities are tasked to ensure that undeserving Marines receive no higher characterization than is due.  Relief denied.

The applicant’s discharge characterization accurately reflects her service to her country.  The 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.  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 her not using drugs, are examples of verifiable documents that should have been provided to receive consideration for relief, based on post-service conduct. She is reminded that she remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of her 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.  Relief denied.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Paragraph 6210, MISCONDUCT, of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16E), effective 18 Aug 95 until Present. 

B.  The Manual for Courts-Martial authorizes the award of a punitive discharge if adjudged as part of the sentence upon conviction by a special or general court-martial for violation of the UCMJ, Article 86, absent from place of duty.

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 “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