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

ex-LCpl, USMC
Docket No. MD02-00095

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 011016, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable and the reason for 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 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: UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL)/INVOL DIS (PERSONALITY DISORDER), authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6203.3

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

1.  My General Discharge is unjustified due to the fact it was based on a medical diagnosis instead of my service and performance records.

2.  My Re-entry code is unjustified due to a diagnosis I believe is inaccurate, and when signing my separation papers, I believe I was ill-advised to refuse councel to make the process move more quickly.

3. I believe my records show that my service was satisfactory and acceptable and was unmarred by disciplinary actions.

4.  Based on above issues and reference I am respectfully requesting my re-entry code be upgraded, to allow me to further serve my country

Documentation

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

Statement from applicant
Three pages from applicant's service record
Character reference from applicant's wife
Character reference from shift supervisor
Character reference from SCO, Corrections Corp of America dated September 19, 2001
Character reference from SCO/LPN/CID, Corrections Corp of America dated September 17, 2001
Character reference
Character reference dated September 19, 2001
Character reference dated September 18, 2001
Character reference from applicant's mother-in-law dated September 18, 2001
Character reference from secretary, Mayer Community Church dated September 18, 2001

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   None
	Inactive: USMCR(J)		920529 - 930201	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  930202		Date of Discharge:  950526

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    02  03  25
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  48

Highest Rank:  LCpl

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Proficiency:  4.4 (5)			Conduct:  4.3 (5)

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NDSM, SSDR

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

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

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

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

931116:	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.

	AXIS I: Personality disorder, NOS with borderline and narcissistic traits, EPTE, severe.
	
	AXIS II: Occupational problem.

931118:	Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct [Personality disorder, specifically borderline narcissistic traits also my suicidal ideations].  Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.

941107:	Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct [Feelings of depression and suicidal ideations].  Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.

941212:	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.

	AXIS I: Personality disorder NOS with borderline and antisocial traits.

950201:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under honorable conditions for the convenience of the government due to a personality disorder, based upon a diagnosed personality disorder.

950210:	Applicant advised of his rights and having consulted 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.

950307:	Commanding officer recommended discharge honorable for the convenience of the government due to a personality disorder, based upon a diagnosed personality disorder as evidenced by psychological evaluation.  The factual basis for this recommendation was your inability to perform your military duties due to your suicidal ideation. 

950428:	GCMCA [Commanding General, I Marine Expeditionary Force] 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 950526 under honorable conditions (general) 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).

Issues 1 and 3.  The applicant was involuntarily separated for the convenience of the government due to a personality disorder, based upon a diagnosed personality disorder. No other narrative reason more clearly describes the circumstances surrounding the applicant’s processing for administrative separation.  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 adverse counseling entries on two occasions.  The applicant repeatedly stated his desire to get out of the Marines to medical authorities.  The applicant’s Motor Transport Chief noted the applicant was lackadaisical and constantly trying to get out of work. The applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, falls short of that required for an honorable characterization of service.  An upgrade to honorable would be inappropriate.  Relief denied.

Issues 2 and 4.  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. While he may feel that he received poor advice concerning the exercise of his rights during discharge proceedings, 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.

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 P1900.16D), effective 27 Jun 89 until 17 Aug 95.

B.  Table 6-1, Guide for Characterization of Service of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16D), effective 27 Jun 89 until 17 Aug 95.

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