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

 ex-LCpl, USMC
Docket No. MD01-01024

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 010731, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable.  The applicant requested a personal appearance hearing discharge review.  The applicant did not designate a representative on the DD Form 293.  In the acknowledgement letter to the applicant, he was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 020620.  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.  1.  This discharge was inadequate because LCPL (applicant's) proficiency and conduct marks show that LCPL (applicant) performed duties in a satisfactory manner.

la.  LCPL (applicant) was suffering from severe depressions as a direct result from two years of isolated service.  LCPL (applicant) had leave time earned, but leave time was consistently denied by commanding officers (CMA, 29 Palms, CA.)

lb.  LCPL (applicant) was considered "medically disqualified" for re-enlistment on 96/11/05 for reasons not supported in service or medical records.  LCPL (applicant) was given no less than three U.A. charges while in a known state of severe depression and while under the influence of medication from the Base Medical Department for injuries.  Even though the commanding officers were made aware of this medication, no effort was made to assist this marine.  This lack of effort shows unfair and unequal treatment by Center Magazine Area Command nor was transportation made available to personnel without P.O.V. to reach Muster at CNM, a considerable distance from barracks.

2.  Upon discharge and while in separations briefing, LCPL (applicant) was made clear that he would receive Montgomery G.I. Bill benefits and would not receive his $1200 investment in that program.  On August 21, 200 1, a letter was received from Doug Smith, education program chief at Department of Veterans Affairs, stating that LCPL (applicant) was not eligible for the Montgomery G.I. Bill that LCPL (applicant) had paid for years before.  Smith claims that a 4 6current" contract regarding the G.I. Bill supersedes the contract that LCPL (applicant) had signed.  S_ states that LCPL (applicant) will not receive his education benefits nor will his investment be returned as had been the investments of personnel who received dishonorable and other than honorable discharges during separations.

3.  LCPL (applicant) has continued his college education on his own, but would like a resolution to these issues.  LCPL (applicant) is now a Corrections Officer at a Level 5 facility in the state of Michigan.  LCPL (applicant) is interested in joining the Marine Reserves or the Michigan National Guard.  However, LCPL (applicant) will not be able to do so until these issues regarding the discharge is addressed.

Documentation

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

Copy of DD Form 214 (2 copies)
Enlistment Contract (page 1) dtd 92SEP30 
Marine Corps Certificate  for exceptional assistance in recruiting dtd 8 Mar 93
Weighmaster Certificate dtd 970407
Application for Do It Yourself Move and Counseling Checklist dtd 25 Feb 97
Pay Account Summary
Montgomery GI Bill agreement dtd 4 May 94
USMC LES
VA ltr of Aug 21, 2000 to the Applicant
Southwestern Michigan College, final grades
Transcript Inquiry - Undergraduate Studies Working copy

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   None
	Inactive: USMCR(J)		920930 - 940427	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  940428		Date of Discharge:  970301

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    02  10  04
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  4 

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  66

Highest Rank:  LCpl

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Proficiency:  4.3 (9)		Conduct:  4.3 (9)

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NDSM, SSDR, Rifle Marksmanship Badge

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

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:

950421:	Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct [inability to be at your assigned place of duty in a timely, consistent manner, disregarding duty and work assignments and changing work places to fit your schedule vice completing duties assigned by superiors and conduct unbecoming a Marine and inability to properly obey orders and directions from seniors].  Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.

950511:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 134: was disorderly which conduct was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.
Awarded forfeiture of $478.00 per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duties for 45 days and reduction to E-2.  Not appealed.

960430:	Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct [failure to report to your appointed place of duty, on 25 Apr 96].  Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.

960624:	Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct [violation of Article 86, on or about 960604 at 0600 you were UA for duty at the Center Magazine Area bluntly disregarding good order and discipline].  Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.

960624:	Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct [pattern of misconduct and frequent violation of UCMJ as demonstrated by page 11 entries on 950421. 960430, 960624 and page 12 entry on 950511, this behav9ior reflects unreliability and inattentiveness to detail and a disregard for regulations and instruction].  Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.

961013:	Mental Health Dept, Naval Hospital, 29 Palms, CA:  Pt is 21 year old male who initially present to mental health Oct 96 but was also seen in Okinawa 20 Apr 95 for "eccentric behavior".  Pt continues to have occupational problems secondary to personality traits that are "odd and eccentric". Pt has been given a diagnosis of Personality Disorder NOS with Schizotypal and Schizoid Features.  His personality disorder is severe and often interferes with his ability to work well with others and to work under stressful situations.  It was recommended in the past that the pt be changed to MOS that is more secluded and less stressful.  Pt is currently unsuitable for his current MOS.  If changing his MOS is problematic, I recommend that he pt be administratively separated secondary to the severity of his personality disorder.

961017:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86:  on or about 0730, 961009 absent himself from his place of duty at which he was required to be and did remain so until 0830.
Awarded forfeiture of $250.00 7 days pay (suspended for 3 months), restriction and extra duties for 14 days.  Not appealed.

961105:	Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct [not recommended for reenlistment due to not being medically qualified and will be assigned a reenlistment code of 3P].  Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.

961212:	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. 

961212:	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 and to submit a statement.

961213:	Commanding officer recommended discharge with an honorable for the convenience of the government due to a personality disorder, based upon a diagnosed personality.

970106:	Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct [violation of Art. 86 of the UCMJ when you were UA from PT formation on 961216, 0530-0610 and UA from work placed on 971217, 0700 0730].  Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.

970123:	GCMCA [CG, Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center] 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 970301 with a 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).

Issue 1.   The applicant’s performance evaluation average is not the sole criterion in determining his characterization of service. A characterization of service of 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 offenses triable by court-martial on two occasions and adverse counseling entries on other occasions.  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 denied.

The Board found no basis for the applicant’s allegations that his command treated him unfairly or inequitably, or that the applicant’s medical condition in some way mitigated his misconduct. The record is devoid of evidence that the applicant was not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions.  Relief denied.

Issue 2.  The Veterans Administration determines eligibility for post-service benefits, not the NDRB.  There is no requirement or law that grants recharacterization solely on the issue of obtaining veterans’ benefits and this issue does not serve to provide a foundation upon which the Board can grant relief.  Relief denied.

Issue 3.  Concerning a change in reenlistment code, the NDRB has no authority to change reenlistment codes or make recommendations to permit reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Naval Service or any other branch of the Armed Forces. Neither a less than fully honorable discharge nor an unfavorable “RE” code is, in itself, a bar to reenlistment. A request for waiver is normally done only during the processing of a formal application for enlistment through a recruiter.  Relief is therefore denied.

The applicant’s discharge characterization accurately reflects his service to his 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 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.  Relief denied.

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 “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