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

 ex-LCpl, USMC
Docket No. MD01-01037

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 010802, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable and the reason for the discharge be changed to Convenience of Government.  The applicant requested a personal appearance hearing before the Board in the Washington National Capital region.  The applicant listed the American Legion as the representative on the DD Form 293.  In the acknowledgement letter to the applicant, the applicant 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 020529.  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 and narrative reason 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) While he was a good Marine, his parent’s illness and his use of a herbal body building supplement impaired his ability to serve and caused him to be misdiagnosed as having a personally disorder.  Based on his performance and conduct markings he opines that a characterization upgrade to full honorable is warranted.  Based on the professional medical opinion of record indicating that he is fit for military service, he avers that amendment of his narrative reason to Secretarial Authority is also warranted.

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 this application.

Documentation

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

Copy of DD Form 214 (Member 1 and 4)
Statement from the applicant
Nine pages from applicant's service record
Character reference
Letter from House of Representatives dated June 29, 2001
Letter of recommendation dated June 20, 2001
Letter of recommendation dated June 7, 2001
Letter from Father, Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary Parish dated July 2, 2001
Character reference dated July 2, 2001

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   None
	Inactive: USMCR(J)		980410 - 980706	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  980707		Date of Discharge:  010305

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    02  07  29
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  76

Highest Rank:  LCpl

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Proficiency:  4.2 (8)			Conduct:  4.2 (8)

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  None

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:

001204:	Applicant referred by medical officer for psychological consultation.  Applicant has previous history of psychological depression and exhibits positive homicidal tendencies and suicidal tendencies.

010123:	Medical evaluation by a military psychiatrist concluded that the applicant’s personality disorder was so severe that his ability to function effectively in the military environment was significantly impaired.  The applicant was deemed a continuing risk to self or others due to low impulse control.

	AXIS I: Adjustment disorder with mixed disturbance of emotions and conduct 
	Anxiety disorder NOS, R/O generalized anxiety disorder vs malingering conduct disorder by history
	AXIS II: Personality disorder NOS with narcissistic, borderline and antisocial traits
	AXIS III: Rule out GERD/Ulcer process.  See medical record.
	AXIS IV: Illness of mother, routine military service
	AXIS V: 80

010124:	CO, Naval Hospital, 29 Palms, CA states applicant should not have access to weapons.  

010125:	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 evaluations.

010126:	Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights.

010208:	Commanding officer recommended 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 psychological evaluations.  The factual basis for this recommendation was demonstrated the inability to uphold Marine Corps standards by his suicidal tendencies and various harmful threats toward himself.  In mid-November, Lance Corporal (applicant) joined Bravo Company as a rifleman from Barracks Duty, 8th & I where his performance was in keeping with that of an average Marine.  Upon arriving, Lance Corporal (applicant) requested and was immediately sent on leave to care for his ailing parents in Pennsylvania.  When he returned, Lance Corporal (applicant) expressed his desire to kill himself to members of his platoon.  He was then admitted to Balboa Naval Hospital for evaluation and possible treatment. After several tests and interviews with a psychiatric physician, Lance Corporal (applicant) was found to be of no harm to himself or others and was subsequently discharged, per a phone conversation between the attending physician and Capt. J_ A_ E_, CO, Bravo Company.  Due to his lack of available leave and in order to allow him time with his ailing parents over the holidays, Lance Corporal (applicant) was afforded the opportunity to go home on Permissive TAD orders to work at a recruiting station.  Immediately prior to his appointed time of return to the battalion, Lance Corporal (applicant) again demonstrated suicidal ideations as well as expressing intent to do physical harm to his fellow Marines.  While still on PTAD, Lance Corporal (applicant) was placed on an involuntary hold and psychiatrically hospitalized in a local civilian facility.  A subsequent search of his car yielded a loaded SKS rifle.  Lance Corporal (applicant) stated he was unsure whether or not he would shoot himself or someone else.  Lance Corporal (applicant) was transferred to Walter Reed Army Medical Hospital in Washington, D.C. for evaluation.  Upon conclusion of evaluation, Lance Corporal (applicant) was found unfit for further military service and was recommended for immediate separation by the attending psychiatric physician.  Upon his return to the battalion, Lance Corporal (applicant) experienced another anxiety attack and was sent to the Naval Hospital in Twentynine Palms for evaluation.  Lance Corporal (applicant) was again found to be unfit for further military service and recommended for expeditious discharge.  Based on SNM's actions and the recommendations of two psychiatric physicians, I believer Lance Corporal (applicant) is unfit for further military service.  

010226:	GCMCA [Commanding General, 1st Marine Division (Rein)] 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 010305 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 Board does not consider the circumstances surrounding the applicant’s stated condition and implied incorrect diagnosis to be of sufficient nature to warrant an upgrade to his characterization of service.  The applicant was diagnosed by a competent medical authority on 010123 with a personality disorder of such severity as to render him a chronic risk to himself and/or others and unfit for further service. No other narrative reason more clearly describes the circumstances surrounding the applicant’s processing for administrative separation.  The applicant’s service was marred by his substandard conduct as evidenced by statements made in the official record by members of his chain of command.  The Board found a discharge under honorable conditions (general) was proper and equitable.  While he may feel that sports supplements and his family problems were factors that contributed to his actions, the record clearly reflects his willful disregard for the requirements of military discipline and demonstrated that he was unfit for further service.  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 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